Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Adam's Rib: The weaker sex?

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    F.A. wrote: »
    As for this whole discussion about weaker sex - what exactly is this based on? Physicality? Personality? Tradition? Makes no sense to me:

    Personally i prefer the term the "fairer sex", not sure why. Maybe because girls are hot and boys are icky.

    Anways, interesting post!!


  • Options
    #33
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    F.A. wrote: »
    No, I think the root of it is somewhere else. One of you male moderators - sorry, can't quite remember who of you!! (Wibbs?) - recently posted his theory that many men don't actually like women. I was gobsmacked when I read it, because it really rings true. And if it's true, it would go a long way to explain why men like to think of themselves as superiour. Being generally physically stronger made it easy enough for them to act upon these feelings, building up their own little circles, which ultimately resulted in the exclusion of women from education and thus positions in society that depend on education. Since education is no longer the issue, the challenge now lies in overcoming the cliches born out of these historic conditions, i.e., realise and deal with the fact that there is no objective reason for men or women to have different rights to the other.
    Good post and yep that was me. I would say that a hell of a lot of men dont actually like women. They're sexually attracted to them sure and out of that they may fall in love etc which lasts for a while, but actually like women as people? I can honestly(and sadly) say hand on heart I can think of maybe 4 men I know that do. It would be no coincidence that they're the ones who are most well balanced men I know too.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #34
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    'The bible' has be re edited and re translated in to what somewhere between 7 and 9 different languages and then the niceen counsel did away with over 2/3 of it.

    The old testement has not been edited much, if at all. The Christian version and Hebrew bible are the same.


  • Options
    #35
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Good post and yep that was me. I would say that a hell of a lot of men dont actually like women. They're sexually attracted to them sure and out of that they may fall in love etc which lasts for a while, but actually like women as people? I can honestly(and sadly) say hand on heart I can think of maybe 4 men I know that do. It would be no coincidence that they're the ones who are most well balanced men I know too.

    Do women even like women?


  • Options
    #36
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Of course, yes, in the same way men like men who are friends.

    I would add that a fair few men appear to like women, but it's because they put them on a pedestal. They're in awe of them more than anything because they think they have a part to play in their happiness. It's hard to like someone you're in awe of. All women know the simpering male type that "loves" women, but you know he's got ulterior motives.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Good post and yep that was me. I would say that a hell of a lot of men dont actually like women. They're sexually attracted to them sure and out of that they may fall in love etc which lasts for a while, but actually like women as people? I can honestly(and sadly) say hand on heart I can think of maybe 4 men I know that do. It would be no coincidence that they're the ones who are most well balanced men I know too.

    I would agree in a sense. But i would say the same stands for women, many of them don't actually LIKE men, so much as be driven in the same way that men are, which is normally bottom line base instincts with a confused jumble of high thought processes and learnings.

    I think often times people enter into relationships with preconceived sense of self. They feel they know who they are and often misinterpret the natural change that spending a large degree of time with someone you have a sexual/intellectual/emotional interest and connection with as being something bad, rather than stopping and analysising why it was happening and possibly seeing that it is for the good.

    Nobody likes anything that challenges who they feel they are.


  • Options
    #38
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Of course, yes, in the same way men like men who are friends.

    Women tend to have friendships which are a mile wide and an inch deep. And they tend to be not very long lasting. one of the differences between the sexes is that much social involvement outside the family and home is male dominated, from work, to sports fans, to poltical parties, to many social type activites. Some of these are becoming more mixed but the social system of fraternalization was male first, and when it is female first ( if you can think of any), no male would want to join.

    In short men get on better with men, then women with women. There are very few men of my acquaintance who worry about their women going out with the ladies too often, or goin away for weekends with the girls ( and when women do do that, it seems a reponse to the original male stag etc.) . In fact we would wish more of it.

    If female friendship and triba herding was a strong as male friendships then we all go about our seperate ways every second weekend without caterwalling about the shagging relationship, and other topics of no interest to us when united are playing.


  • Options
    #39
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    asdasd wrote: »
    In short men get on better with men, then women with women. There are very few men of my acquaintance who worry about their women going out with the ladies too often, or goin away for weekends with the girls ( and when women do do that, it seems a reponse to the original male stag etc.) . In fact we would wish more of it.

    If female friendship and triba herding was a strong as male friendships then we all go about our seperate ways every second weekend without caterwalling about the shagging relationship, and other topics of no interest to us when united are playing.

    I would think that this section of the post goes somewhat in line with Wibbs saying how men don't actually like women. :D


  • Options
    #40
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Dragan wrote: »
    I would agree in a sense. But i would say the same stands for women, many of them don't actually LIKE men, so much as be driven in the same way that men are, which is normally bottom line base instincts with a confused jumble of high thought processes and learnings.
    Very good point. Indeed I would go so far as to say that women cover up their baser instincts even more than men and tend to over romanticise them. You don't hear men use terms as "spark" "the one" or any of that. Loosely translated as "I wanna bone him" of course.

    I would also agree that many women don't like men, but IMHO there are less of them and for different reasons. I think many don't like men, because they don't actually know many men, especially men who dont harbour lustful thoughts. So they're on guard more. Maybe with some men it's a control thing. They like being in control and because they want something from women but have no control over it they get twitchy. I dunno tbh.

    I will say I really value my women mates and they're the reason I like women in general(some are batshít though, like blokes). It's always good to get a different take on things. They're damn good for that and I'm handy for them too. They're also much better at letting you rant and rave and actually listen. they don't jump in halfway trying to fix things either(as many women will recognise with blokes:D).

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #41
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    asdasd wrote: »
    In short men get on better with men, then women with women. There are very few men of my acquaintance who worry about their women going out with the ladies too often, or goin away for weekends with the girls ( and when women do do that, it seems a reponse to the original male stag etc.) . In fact we would wish more of it.
    TBH I've had as much if not more fun on a night with a bunch o lassies(no nookie involved either). Great craic, especially if they know there's no other motive and you become another person who happens to have no boobs. It's great fun I must say. Getting ratted on vino while having a good oul rant session at the world and his wife(and husband). I find the conversation subjects more varied in general than average "bloke" nights. Luckily my male mates aren't that blokey although some blokey stuff crops up. My idea of hell would be a session where footy was the only subject.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    would think that this section of the post goes somewhat in line with Wibbs saying how men don't actually like women.

    I am not disagreeing. I expected that men were expected to throw themselves on the flames in shame at our dislike of women. Not me.

    We dont in general like women ( as I said, I dont think women do either). that is part of the reason for supporting united, going fishing, going away with the lads. the secret is we want to get away from women, and hang with men. For a while. Some of these groups may have the odd token woman, but I dont think I have ever gone away with a group that was majority female ( equally mixed yes, but only when all are couples).

    So, in general yes. We will marry one. Get on well with mother and sister. but we dont want to be surrounded by you all, or to join your groups etc. We need our space with our buddies. We clearly, in general, prefer men as friends.


  • Options
    #43
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    My idea of hell would be a session where footy was the only subject.

    I always have better conversations in small mixed groups ( less women than men where the men preen a bit) , or all male groups. Not "footy" ( which was just an example). often political.or humourous. And men are funnier. The only times I remember being surrounded by women is relatives when I was younger prior to an older sibling getting married, and the sheeeer utter banality and boredom. Utterly utterly banal. And bitchy.


  • Options
    #44
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The Adam and Eve parable was used as the spring board for a whole heap of other unfounded ideas about women which lead to them being seen as weak, evil, temptresses,
    and that they were varying from stupid to clever and evil and how men had to be responsible for them and women were consider chattle owned first by thier father and then by thier spouse.

    Women were considered to be the baser sex.

    It's not that long a go a women did not have the same right as men due to such thinking
    and by not that long ago I mean the last 35 years.

    As for not liking women, in general I don't.
    The majority of what is seen as the female herd either bore or disgust me, then again I could say that of people but that does not mean I will willfully and knowing discriminate but will given the vacuous person
    a chance to be real to me, if they fail they do so on their own merits.

    If you don't then you are sexist or worse wandering into Misandry, Misogyny and Misanthropy.


  • Options
    #45
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The Adam and Eve parable was used as the spring board for a whole heap of other unfounded ideas about women which lead to them being seen as weak, evil, temptresses,
    and that they were varying from stupid to clever and evil and how men had to be responsible for them and women were consider chattle owned first by thier father and then by thier spouse.

    In fairness the Parable does very little for the man involved either. To any proper thinking person he comes across as weak willed, easily led, unable to stick to a command given by an obvious superior for the sake of a small scale reward. It might tell us that women are evil temptresses but it gives you that warning because you are supposed to be too stupid and lust filled to be able to say no.


  • Options
    #46
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    I was wondering about this for some reason the other day, I think I was considering narratives. Primitive cultures were sometimes dominated by the moon's cycles for hunting, etc. The moon's cyclical nature relates to the female nature. Later with agriculture societies followed the changing of the seasons, again cyclical. Death and rebirth and death and rebirth, with no start or finish of note. Therefore a society that follows these cycles is feminine. The creation of a bible is the creation of a linear narrative. There is a clear beginning (see page one) and there is a not so clear, implied but still real end. The cycles have become subjugated by a linear concept of timespace, and it is engendered as masculine. Therefore the biblical narrative is masculine, and attempts to place women in the subordinate role.


  • Options
    #47
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Dragan wrote: »
    I would think that this section of the post goes somewhat in line with Wibbs saying how men don't actually like women. :D

    The thing is, is that cultural conditioning going back to the ideals of western culture steming from the judaic christian influence which then also translates into fear of being seen as feminine and less masculine or is it genuinely cause by a persons personal interaction with people of that gender who rubbed them the wrong way ?


  • Options
    #48
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Dragan wrote: »
    In fairness the Parable does very little for the man involved either. To any proper thinking person he comes across as weak willed, easily led, unable to stick to a command given by an obvious superior for the sake of a small scale reward. It might tell us that women are evil temptresses but it gives you that warning because you are supposed to be too stupid and lust filled to be able to say no.

    I have NEVER looked at it that way nor have anyone EVER put that spin on it.

    Yes it was said to me that Adam was a fool in love and any love that is that all consuming is one to be avoided but that's about the extent of it.


  • Options
    #49
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    The thing is, is that cultural conditioning going back to the ideals of western culture steming from the judaic christian influence which then also translates into fear of being seen as feminine

    Japan. China. The Aztecs. Native american tribes. Find a matriarchy. Clearly the bug bear about jeudo-christianity is not going away, but has nothing to do with it.


  • Options
    #50
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The thing is, is that cultural conditioning going back to the ideals of western culture steming from the judaic christian influence which then also translates into fear of being seen as feminine and less masculine or is it genuinely cause by a persons personal interaction with people of that gender who rubbed them the wrong way ?

    It could be argued that the former led to the later. Actually living human experience is a blink of an eye compared to actual human history.

    The cases of personal interaction that had an ill affect on the person outlook of their own or the opposite sex may have resulted in a long and strange and round about way from things like religious ideals and how they affect other aspects of culture, morals, law etc etc.

    As a direct effect, i would give more weight to the later but i will also say that those situations were driven and inspired by a million possible factors from both the history of the person in question.


  • Options
    #51
    F.A.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭F.A.


    asdasd wrote: »
    Japan. China. The Aztecs. Native american tribes. Find a matriarchy. Clearly the bug bear about jeudo-christianity is not going away, but has nothing to do with it.

    Erm, are you seriously suggesting that there has never been any matriarchic society? You are very mistaken if that is the case. They exist even today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The most direct effect I have seen is household where the family is divided along gender lines. Father and son do masculine actives and chores while mother and daughter do feminine activities and chores. I do think that social segregation along gender lines line that can breed a certain amount of intolerance and breed stereotypes to which people feel they must conform.

    Have to say I am glad I did not grow up in such a household, my Father didn't and while my mother did she had no wish to replicate it.


  • Options
    #53
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Erm, are you seriously suggesting that there has never been any matriarchic society? You are very mistaken if that is the case. They exist even today.

    I am suggesting that martiarchial societies either dont exist, or have been so insignificant in world affairs as to make no difference to it. If you find a tribe with 7 people which happens to be totally matriarchial it's lack of success may be attributable to the Matriarchy.

    In any case name one.

    Ah wikipedia
    Most modern anthropologists and sociologists assert that there are no known examples of human matriarchies in recorded history,[2][3][4][5][6][7] and Encyclopedia Britannica describes their views as "consensus", listing matriarchy as a hypothetical social system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy


  • Options
    #54
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    asdasd wrote: »
    I am suggesting that martiarchial societies either dont exist, or have been so insignificant in world affairs as to make no difference to it. If you find a tribe with 7 people which happens to be totally matriarchial it's lack of success may be attributable to the Matriarchy.

    In any case name one.
    You may find this video from TED quite interesting. The scientist in question argues that thousands (and thousands) of years ago, men and women were very equal and the the progress of today is the process of returning to that time of equality, not something that has never been seen before:

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html

    Does BGRH have these types of conversations??!

    brianthebard - that was hilarious. (I assume you were joking..?) Our feminist lecturer in uni (part of a module on Postmodernism *shudder*) told us, with a straight face, that straight lines were masculine and curvy lines were feminine...


  • Options
    #55
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    taconnol wrote: »
    brianthebard - that was hilarious.

    :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
    I was being serious. Have you heard of écriture féminine and Julia Kristeva?


  • Options
    #56
    F.A.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭F.A.


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I would also agree that many women don't like men, but IMHO there are less of them and for different reasons. I think many don't like men, because they don't actually know many men, especially men who dont harbour lustful thoughts. So they're on guard more. Maybe with some men it's a control thing. They like being in control and because they want something from women but have no control over it they get twitchy. I dunno tbh.

    Yeah, that fits. Particularly when you bring "lustful thoughts" into it. I mean, it's bizarre that women are on the one hand stereotyped as having a far lower sex drive than men, while on the other hand they're portrayed as evil temptresses. That reeks of resentful bitterness.

    As for women disliking men: such women exist, no doubt about it. I don't think it is wide-spread, though. Women don't have so many negative, derogatory terms for men as men have for women, so I really think men disliking women is far more common than the other way around.

    As for women disliking women/not having real friendships...: I think women talk about much more personal stuff to their friends than guys would ever among themselves. Nobody would talk to someone about such stuff if they disliked that person. Now, suicide rates among young men are much higher than among young women, which is often thought to be related to men's relative inability to talk about their thoughts. So... the argument doesn't make sense.


  • Options
    #57
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    brianthebard wrote: »
    :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
    I was being serious. Have you heard of écriture féminine and Julia Kristeva?

    Really?? Sorry, I can't take that stuff seriously.


  • Options
    #58
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    taconnol wrote: »
    Really?? Sorry, I can't take that stuff seriously.

    When you studied postmodernism, did you skip all the structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminist criticism and other stuff that came before? Not being smart, but its much easier to think of linear and cyclical time if you've read Barthes and other texts on signs and semiotics. Also for a literary investigation of these themes, you could do worse than read Tom Robbins (think half asleep in frogs' pyjamas is the one) or Enright's What are you like? or even the aforementioned Kristeva.

    ETA: duh, nearly forgot about the last chapter of Ulysses!


  • Options
    #59
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    No, we did all that. I've read Kristeva. I mean, have you read Irigaray and not laughed? It isn't a question of not understanding it. I just can't take postmodernism seriously either. Sorry - I just think its a crock of ****e.

    This article by Dawkins pretty much sums up what I think about it:

    http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html


  • Options
    #60
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    I'm not into postmodernism either, but I don't think it needs to be lumped into that category, coming as it does from psychoanalysis and structuralist thought, and came at the end of modernism. (if you believe modernism ended, but that is a different thread)

    Perry Anderson did it better. Plus it doesn't seem to occur to Dawkins that he might be postmodern himself. But I don't think self analysis is his strong suit anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    F.A.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭F.A.


    asdasd wrote: »
    I am suggesting that martiarchial societies either dont exist, or have been so insignificant in world affairs as to make no difference to it. If you find a tribe with 7 people which happens to be totally matriarchial it's lack of success may be attributable to the Matriarchy.

    Err, you questioned their very existence. They DO exist and HAVE existed. Their significance is not really of importance to that question. Like I said in my original post, men are physically stronger and can easily turn things around for themselves. It is physically much easier for men to dominate women than the other way around.
    In any case name one.

    Ah wikipedia



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy


    Try the Mosuo or the Khasi.


Advertisement