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
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Dragan wrote: »
    I normally feel more comfortable in the company of women. Sometimes with men there can be the whole subconcious jostle for top dog status and it gets old.


    Whereas in your company of women, your status is never threatened? ;)


  • Options
    #93
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Daddio wrote: »
    And now the tricky bit - how to invent something that equalises gender. Hmmm...


    You could try and invent a new system that will benefit both genders and not just one and the other less effectivley :pac:


  • Options
    #94
    Setun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Setun


    WindSock wrote: »
    You could try and invent a new system that will benefit both genders and not just one and the other less effectivley :pac:
    That sounds about right :p


  • Options
    #95
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Um that's pretty much what I've been saying about cycles. You seem confused about the linear concept though?

    The real problem with what you said about linear and cyclical is that you largely pulled it from your ass as a way of describing human behavior. You also pulled from your ass that linear is male, and cyclical female. And like all good sociology students you just have to throw the word "construct" in to prove your point. In fact human behaviour is firmly rooted in genetics, not "constructed" by ourselves. And societies which have cyclical vies of history are patriarchal . So take Hindus for instance. Hinduism has a cyclical view of history. And widows were burned on the funeral pyre. There are plenty of other examples.
    thus even though we speak of the seasons passing, it is the years which are important (another construct). One year follows the next and is never repeated, unlike the seasons. This is linear, phallic, masculine. It is this superimposition and subjugation that is of most importance.

    Enough with the construct crap!

    years are not human constructs. neither is a day. The year is the time it takes for the rotation of the Earth around the sun which we can measure from equinox to equinox, or solstice to solstice. The day the rotation of the Earth around it's axis which we can measure as noon to noon. The year exists independently of human construction. All we construct is the name for the days, and months, and the hourly time period . When we get it wrong - like in the Julian Calendar the solstices and equinoxes move dates. So we know it is wrong. Ergo the year and it's are independent of human construction, as are it's rooted anchor points. We cant decide that the days lasts 36 hours, and the year 22 days. It wouldn't work.


  • Options
    #96
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Daddio wrote: »
    That sounds about right :p

    Like a robot that will come up with the system for us. A non gendered robofemmebot ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    asdasd wrote: »
    The real problem with what you said about linear and cyclical is that you largely pulled it from your ass as a way of describing human behavior. You also pulled from your ass that linear is male, and cyclical female. And like all good sociology students you just have to throw the word "construct" in to prove your point. In fact human behaviour is firmly rooted in genetics, not "constructed" by ourselves. And societies which have cyclical vies of history are patriarchal . So take Hindus for instance. Hinduism has a cyclical view of history. And widows were burned on the funeral pyre. There are plenty of other examples.
    That's the single worst example of anything in the history of examples. you are little more than a troll.


    Enough with the construct crap!

    years are not human constructs. neither is a day. The year is the time it takes for the rotation of the Earth around the sun which we can measure from equinox to equinox, or solstice to solstice. The day the rotation of the Earth around it's axis which we can measure as noon to noon. The year exists independently of human construction. All we construct is the name for the days, and months, and the hourly time period . When we get it wrong - like in the Julian Calendar the solstices and equinoxes move dates. So we know it is wrong. Ergo the year and it's are independent of human construction, as are it's rooted anchor points. We cant decide that the days lasts 36 hours, and the year 22 days. It wouldn't work.

    Oh so wrong. If a year is not a human construct, where is its beginning and end? does the earth pass go and collect 200 intergalactic dollars every January first? You even show how years are construct in your own answer but refuse to believe it. Oh and btw I'm not a sociology student, and I don't pull things from my ass.


  • Options
    #98
    Reku
    Registered Users Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    WindSock wrote: »
    I disagree. I think that many women are absolute fools for men. Everything we do is directly related to securing a man in our teeth. Our bonds with other women will never be as deep as our persuit for the 'right' man. Look at the amount of threads in this forum for example, what percentage of them are about relationships with men?

    We use each other as crutches for when that relationship falls apart, but as soon as there is another man on the scene, those friends are put on the shelf again.
    Though you have to wonder are they seeing men as ATMs, sperm donors and suits of armour or as potential emotional partners? What you describe sounds more like a hunt than a search for an equal.

    I think to be honest the best friendships are those across the division of gender since there is far less of a concern for acting outside what is the normal confines of expected behaviour for your gender, any time a group is made up entirely of those of a certain gender/race/religion, etc... there will be a far greater fear of deviating from what is the social norm for that gender/race/religion, etc....


  • Options
    #99
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    asdasd wrote: »
    . The year is the time it takes for the rotation of the Earth around the sun which we can measure from equinox to equinox, or solstice to solstice. The day the rotation of the Earth around it's axis which we can measure as noon to noon. The year exists independently of human construction. All we construct is the name for the days, and months, and the hourly time period . When we get it wrong - like in the Julian Calendar the solstices and equinoxes move dates. So we know it is wrong. Ergo the year and it's are independent of human construction, as are it's rooted anchor points. We cant decide that the days lasts 36 hours, and the year 22 days. It wouldn't work.


    I think what Brianthebard means (and I may be totally wrong here) is that it's not the nature of how the years and days pass, it's how society builds itself on it. We see each coming year as a progression in technologies and ideas, we think that we never turn back, we are constanly climbing up this ladder.

    Then there was Roman Britain, which was far better off in terms of these technologies than it was later on in years. That shows cyclical nature in human terms. I think...:confused:


  • Options
    #100
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    WindSock wrote: »
    Whereas in your company of women, your status is never threatened? ;)

    Not really. As i said, i am normally more comfortable around women and the male friends that i am comfortable around tend to not give a crap about status or who is the "leader of the pack".

    I have other male friends who's every move and thought is designed to show how they are superior. It amuses me but it also annoys me when they feel the need to try such things with me.

    Besides, the women in my life constantly threaten my status. If you want to look at markers like creativity, intellect, strength etc then i am quite lucky in that the majority of the women i am close to will kick the crap out of me in the majority of them everytime.

    It's awesome.

    Perhaps there is something to Matriarchy after all.:P


  • Options
    #101
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    farohar wrote: »
    Though you have to wonder are they seeing men as ATMs, sperm donors and suits of armour or as potential emotional partners? What you describe sounds more like a hunt than a search for an equal.

    Thats very true, and that is perhaps where we fall down. Is the search of equality totally lost when we try to find fathers to our kids so we can settle down on a comfy couch in a nice home?
    I think to be honest the best friendships are those across the division of gender since there is far less of a concern for acting outside what is the normal confines of expected behaviour for your gender, any time a group is made up entirely of those of a certain gender/race/religion, etc... there will be a far greater fear of deviating from what is the social norm for that gender/race/religion, etc....

    You left out sexuality, what have you got against gays :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Setun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Setun


    WindSock wrote:
    Like a robot that will come up with the system for us. A non gendered robofemmebot

    Oi!

    But who will program the robot?


  • Options
    #103
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Dragan wrote: »
    I have other male friends who's every move and thought is designed to show how they are superior. It amuses me but it also annoys me when they feel the need to try such things with me.

    I have male friends like that too. I love to sit back and watch how this game is played out. There is a very obvious alpha in the group and another (who is less my friend but still in the group) who tries to exert himself as the alpha. When this doesn't happen, he will usually come over to the women where he feels he can act as mr alphapants among us. We don't let him :pac:

    Not saying that this is what you are doing, btw. Just a personal observation among my peeps.


  • Options
    #104
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Daddio wrote: »
    Oi!

    Sorry, roboyfemmebot

    But who will program the robot?

    Adam & Eve of course :)


    God can piss off. He messed up first time around.


  • Options
    #105
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    WindSock wrote: »
    I have male friends like that too. I love to sit back and watch how this game is played out. There is a very obvious alpha in the group and another (who is less my friend but still in the group) who tries to exert himself as the alpha. When this doesn't happen, he will usually come over to the women where he feels he can act as mr alphapants among us. We don't let him :pac:

    Not saying that this is what you are doing, btw. Just a personal observation among my peeps.

    It happens. You have people who will just be more comfortable with men or women. Your mate sounds like he is having some ( maybe just minor ) issues with his self image and wants to be in the Alpha role but lacks the social skills to be accepted by his group.

    He then goes about making himself feel better by trying to do the same with the women, even though as a male he will never be accepted that way into the very specfic and independant social structure the girls will have within the group.

    Me? I just do what i do. If people want to butt it out between themselves then leave them off.

    Personally i am less pack animal and more lone animal, so an argument could be made that i get on better with women simply because i have little chance of breaking too far into their social structure.

    And thats just fine by me.

    Most groups want to measure you, bring you in and then asimilate you giving you an assigned role. It's possibly why you get Tom Boys hanging around with the lads and "nice guys" kicking around with the girls?

    You don't need to conform to anything and can just be yourself, being accepted because, in the hunter gathery sense, you can never be accepted?


  • Options
    #106
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    That's the single worst example of anything in the history of examples. you are little more than a troll.

    Troll, my ass. You claim that it is Western linearity is at the root cause of patriarchy, a falsifiable statement. I respond with an example of a very large cultural group which refutes your nonsense and all you can chant is troll. Ok, then the Aztecs.
    Oh so wrong. If a year is not a human construct, where is its beginning and end? does the earth pass go and collect 200 intergalactic dollars every January first? You even show how years are construct in your own answer but refuse to believe it. Oh and btw I'm not a sociology student, and I don't pull things from my ass.

    Where we start the year is irrelevant to the existence of years absent of humans. I didn't mention the start of the year. I mentioned the anchor points - solstice and equinox - which can be measured year to year. And that the day has to be a certain length of time.

    without humans, the year would exist - i.e. another intelligent species would define an earth year exactly as we do, at the same length of time, and would have to come up with the leap year idea. The division of the year into months is a construct, the hour is a construct. The year is not.


  • Options
    #107
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    asdasd wrote: »
    without humans, the year would exist - i.e. another intelligent species would define an earth year exactly as we do, at the same length of time, and would have to come up with the leap year idea. The division of the year into months is a construct, the hour is a construct. The year is not.

    I agree.

    But only with the caveat that even "a year" is purely relevant on location.


  • Options
    #108
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    asdasd wrote: »
    Troll, my ass. You claim that it is Western linearity is at the root cause of patriarchy, a falsifiable statement. I respond with an example of a very large cultural group which refutes your nonsense and all you can chant is troll. Ok, then the Aztecs.
    So shouting out the names of random cultures counts as a refutation now does it? Colour me unimpressed.


    Where we start the year is irrelevant to the existence of years absent of humans. I didn't mention the start of the year. I mentioned the anchor points - solstice and equinox - which can be measured year to year. And that the day has to be a certain length of time.

    without humans, the year would exist - i.e. another intelligent species would define an earth year exactly as we do, at the same length of time, and would have to come up with the leap year idea. The division of the year into months is a construct, the hour is a construct. The year is not.

    How can you have a year absent of humans? How would you know it existed? If the year is not a construct, why have different societies had different ways of measuring it? If all you are counting is solstice and equinox, then I must assume you agree with the cyclical analysis. If you believe that years happen, year on year, then you must agree that it is a linear concept. If you think that years happen year on year but based on the solstice and equinox (how many people know when they are btw?) then you are just confused tbh.


  • Options
    #109
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    brianthebard wrote: »
    How can you have a year absent of humans? How would you know it existed? If the year is not a construct, why have different societies had different ways of measuring it? If all you are counting is solstice and equinox, then I must assume you agree with the cyclical analysis. If you believe that years happen, year on year, then you must agree that it is a linear concept. If you think that years happen year on year but based on the solstice and equinox (how many people know when they are btw?) then you are just confused tbh.

    Sorry Brian, i gotta agree with him. You can't say simply that having noone around to understand a concept doesn't mean that concept cannot exist.

    The difference here is i think you are both arguing time as part concept, part actuality.

    The simple fact of it is that "time" as a concept exists. It's a roadmap of tiny increments that we use to measure the age of things.

    However, how long is a second on Mars? If a year is a year, and a day is a day, and all these things are measured from the point of the location and rotation of the body in question to the sun and these concepts began very specifically on one planet they cannot be attached to another.

    If you want to know how long a second is on Mars you need to find a Martian, teach him English, find the common ground explanation for a second and then start counting.

    You'll both stop at a different time.


  • Options
    #110
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    I never said time didn't exist?


  • Options
    #111
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I never said time didn't exist?

    I know.

    But as a concept, how we see it is purely a human interpretation of a universal issue.

    We mashed our measurements of time to be as close to what actually happens as possible, 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, 60 mins in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute and so on.

    But it simple doesn't match to what actually happens. Hence leap years.

    Our measurement is a close approximation at best.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    lol @ how a creationist thread quickly turns into a scientific one. :pac:


  • Options
    #113
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Dragan wrote: »
    I know.

    But as a concept, how we see it is purely a human interpretation of a universal issue.

    Yeah that's the point, that its an interpretation (construct) and not an absolute as asdasd seems to think.
    WindSock wrote: »
    lol @ how a creationist thread quickly turns into a scientific one. :pac:

    I don't think the op is a creationist? :eek:


  • Options
    #114
    EamonnKeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    Dragan wrote: »
    Sorry Brian, i gotta agree with him. You can't say simply that having noone around to understand a concept doesn't mean that concept cannot exist.

    The difference here is i think you are both arguing time as part concept, part actuality.

    The simple fact of it is that "time" as a concept exists. It's a roadmap of tiny increments that we use to measure the age of things.

    However, how long is a second on Mars? If a year is a year, and a day is a day, and all these things are measured from the point of the location and rotation of the body in question to the sun and these concepts began very specifically on one planet they cannot be attached to another.

    If you want to know how long a second is on Mars you need to find a Martian, teach him English, find the common ground explanation for a second and then start counting.

    You'll both stop at a different time.

    The second is defined in terms of the hyperfine transition of caesium, not the Earth's orbit (because some years can be longer than others by several seconds due to solar activity). So both seconds would be the same. Regarding time, physicists disagree as to whether it is a property of the universe or merely something experienced by the mind.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    It's masculine [linear] because it mirrors the male orgasm. Build, climax, denoument.

    Try reading Ficciones - stories by Borges, cycles, infinite regressions, all sorts of deviations from the anglo saxon traditional structure.
    What does the female orgasm do, then? And it's "denouement".


  • Options
    #115
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    EamonnKeane wrote: »
    The second is defined in terms of the hyperfine transition of caesium, not the Earth's orbit (because some years can be longer than others by several seconds due to solar activity). So both seconds would be the same. Regarding time, physicists disagree as to whether it is a property of the universe or merely something experienced by the mind.

    Bad ass! Cheers dude, you learn something new everyday!

    This will be quite controversial but their is a great LSD documentary that is worth watching, detail and showing phototage from one of the only recorded controlled experiements with LSD. The discussion and concepts of time thrown about are quite amazing.

    I'll dig up the title and such.


  • Options
    #116
    g'em
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,819 ✭✭✭✭g'em


    *side note*
    Dragan wrote: »
    This will be quite controversial but their is a great LSD documentary that is worth watching, detail and showing phototage from one of the only recorded controlled experiements with LSD.
    Every time I see mention of LSD being used in experimentation I can't help but think about the elephant-on-acid test of 1962.

    Curiosity killed the pachyderm.

    I still lol'd though. I'll probably go to hell :o


    */end side note*


  • Options
    #117
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Dragan wrote: »
    You don't need to conform to anything and can just be yourself, being accepted because, in the hunter gathery sense, you can never be accepted?

    We all have to interact with each other. There will always be a social structure no matter where you go or who you are. I like to think as myself as the individual lone wolf aswell, but I still have status in groups, it should be down to my usefulness on where I stand in the group, but sometimes I am thrust into a group where I feel I have little or no value because of my gender.

    Which brings me back to the point of my friend. I won't accept him as an alpha because I don't see him as possesing enough qualities that I admire to be one. I don't like that he thinks its ok to ignore women when other men are around and then use us to fall back on when no one talks to him.

    I think if you activley persue kingship (or queenship) among your kin, then there is something wrong there that you feel you must have to.


  • Options
    #118
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I don't think the op is a creationist? :eek:

    No I don't either, I just mean that it started off referring to how women are percieved since the beginning of time in the creationists sense.


  • Options
    #119
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    WindSock wrote: »
    I think if you activley persue kingship (or queenship) among your kin, then there is something wrong there that you feel you must have to.

    Spot on. As a mish mash of cultures and societies the human race is now far too complex, even on a smaller social scale, for any single person to hold all the attributes required for effective and continuous "Alpha" status.

    Know your role, act to your strengths. T'is generally the way to go.


  • Options
    #120
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:
    So how can these wussified men, as you so eloquently put it, be in the wrong if they are reacting to a social situation which encourages them to behave in this way? For instance, your great grandfather might call you wussified and socially retarded because you are speaking about personal stuff/relationships to your friends...and yet, in your social circle, this is what is required of you to fit in. No? It's all a matter of perspective?
    You picked a bad example sadly:) My paternal great grandfather would have discussed such with his friends. I have some of his letters. Very personal and intimate stuff. I do get where you're coming from though.
    Dragan wrote: »
    I normally feel more comfortable in the company of women. Sometimes with men there can be the whole subconcious jostle for top dog status and it gets old.
    I think this top dog thing is more prevalent in immature male groupings or groups where the is an immature insecure male present(like the guy you describe).

    In many ways a grouping of males(or females) of the same age group would not have been the case for most of our history. In most societies the ages would hang out together, which would have a tendency to smooth over a lot of issues that may come up and act as a brake on more extreme behaviour.

    Although a loose analogy; I read about a zoo that set up a wolf pack, as you would, and there were major problems. These problems(including deaths) were down to the fact that they had put wolves of the same age together. there was jostling but it was unstructured. they stuck in an alpha female and male and the problem stopped instantly.

    You could equate that to the gang culture prevalent in many societies. Those gangs are made up mostly of young fatherless men. It's no surprise they go down that route. The healthy need for male guidance and company is replaced by the gang.

    I also think that the alpha/beta thing is more a western, especially American (god help me:D) construct. Human groupings are far more subtle. Yes we understand and sometimes jump into those roles, but they're more a surface thing.
    EamonnKeane wrote:
    Regarding time, physicists disagree as to whether it is a property of the universe or merely something experienced by the mind.
    Actually I would have thought that time is one of the most 'real" things in the universe. While our individual perception of it can vary, it underpins pretty much everything. It came into being at the very instant the universe did. Entropy measured I suppose.

    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
    #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    WindSock wrote: »
    I have male friends like that too. I love to sit back and watch how this game is played out. There is a very obvious alpha in the group and another (who is less my friend but still in the group) who tries to exert himself as the alpha. When this doesn't happen, he will usually come over to the women where he feels he can act as mr alphapants among us. We don't let him :pac:

    Normally the one who epitomises everything about aplha male in a loud and brash kind of way is the most insecure in their own skin.

    I could care less about tussling for social dominance. I have predominantly male friends but I've noticed that girls seem to have a tusssle for queen bee but it's carried out in an entirely different way. It's normally done through condescending compliments etc.

    I have no problem getting on with women but I do find at times that I don't like the changes inmyself that come about when I have a woman in my life. I end up with someone to worry about etc. It's funny because my GF is far more independent like that meaning that in that sense I'd be the weaker of the two. I find that at times with women I feel like there's a struggle for me to not become too much of a pushover while maintaining my want to see her happy. I find balancing that at times to be difficult. It's funny because by nature I'm assertive and if I have a problem i'll say it but I'm easy going and only tend to have a problem when it's a big deal which I often feel can be misconstrued as me being somewhat of a soft touch. i'm aware of that, hence the struggle to not be "whipped".


Advertisement