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
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    "The funny thing about Dawkins is no one man's words have been given so much weight since Jesus." - Dragan


  • Options
    #63
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    brianthebard wrote: »
    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.

    My issue isn't so much with the concept of post-modernism, which is a useful concept, but with many of its proponents who spout utter nonsense and seem to revel in writing the most garbled opaque prose that is almost impenetrable to the reader.
    Dragan wrote: »
    "The funny thing about Dawkins is no one man's words have been given so much weight since Jesus." - Dragan

    I'll make reference to anyone who makes sense.


  • Options
    #64
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    F.A. wrote: »
    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.
    I would tend to go back to biology in broad strokes anyway. In earlier stages of human evolution, while roles were along quite strict gender lines, they were equal roles. Even hunter gatherer religions reflect that. The male and the female dieties had pretty equal but different roles. The duality in nature and in humanity was recognised and celebrated. Early man moved about the place in quite small inter related groups. More like wolves than apes(which may explain why dogs are the oldest domesticated animal). Basically extended families, often polygynous. Paternity in such families was quite simple and as such female sexuality was not as feared as a danger to the social unit.

    I think patriarchal societies kicked of in a big way when we became farmers and left that behind. The biggest change was property, especially land. now before that paternity for men, while a big deal was easier to ignore. Now when inheritance was involved, paternity became much more important to men. Now it could have gone down the maternal line(as did happen in a few rare cultures for diff reasons), but it tended to go down the male. Probably for physical defence purposes.

    At that point a man was very concerned about whether his offspring were truly his. Remember it's only really in the last 50 or so years where we can be absolutely sure the father is the biological father. To safeguard that, women's sexuality, celebrated up to then, became socially dangerous, hence the culture of suspicion and the culture of virginity and chasteness being extolled. If you have a young woman you know is a virgin and is "chaste" and you physically possess her then it increases the chances massively that her kids will be the yours. Now some nomadic types kept a holdover from the earlier cultures and women being fertile was a better bet so women with kids already were valued. Funny enough Islam has both angles covered. Mohammed himself married both young virgins and widows
    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.
    I think the dislike is based on fear of loss of control and fear of the woman's sexuality too. As well as being well balanced men, the guys I know who like women are also very successful with them. Chicken and egg thing but I reckon there's something to that.
    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.
    That's a bit of a fallacy tbh. With my friends, the men talk about some very personal stuff. Very. Actually in my extended circle I can think of only one guy who would be uncomfortable with that. I would talk about the same personal stuff to my women or men friends and they with me. It also depends on "expertise" required too.
    Nobody would talk to someone about such stuff if they disliked that person.
    Maybe. I think women's friendships are much more fluid. They change a lot. It can be hard to keep track with some of them. Mens are more absolute. There are things that I've heard my female mates call their best mate, where if they were two blokes, fists would fly and that would be the end of any friendship.
    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.
    That's quite a recent thing. I suspect it's going to get worse too as men lose how to be men. Men need to learn that way more than I think women need to learn how to be women. They need example and frankly they dont get it much nowadays. You see it all over the place the same guff passing as advice to men, often from women too. The "be yourself", "consensus is good", "I'm alright, you're alright" crapola, that has bugger all to do with maleness at any extreme of the spectrum. This is bad for women too as all you will be left with is extremes of machoness(lets join gangs or be horrendous boors) or wussiness(oooooh I had an emotion, boohoo). Both built on insecurity.

    The thing is I don't blame women or feminism for this(as often they are). No way. I blame men. Fathers, non related men, some aspects of the media and yes some women who think they want a certain type but will never be happy with that. I blame men for not being secure in themselves enough to say "yes I like ballet oh and by the way screw with me or mine and you're in trouble bucko". This stuff isn't rocket science. Women will be and are for the most part going places, it's my own gender I worry about.

    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
    #65
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,282 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    taconnol wrote: »
    Does BGRH have these types of conversations??!

    No, they're strictly prohibited by the following article in the forum charter:
    NO SERIOUS THREADS

    There are plenty of fora sprinkled around Boards.ie that will cater for serious discussion on beer, food and such like. If there is one thing that can be guaranteed, it is that you won't get a serious response from the vast majority of people here, mods included.


  • Options
    #66
    Elle Victorine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Elle Victorine


    asdasd wrote: »
    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.


    I can see why you wouldn't. I don't like hanging in groups of girls either. I would be the token girl in my group only because they refer to me as a lad.
    In my experience groups of women are a pain in the bloody arse and wouldn't entice me to join them in anything. I even limit the number of girls I am close with to about one.

    And I'm with Wibb...men do confide in each other they just don't sit around and make a bloody mountain from a mole hill and make the process last months longer than it has to. Though undoubtedly they posess the ability to do so of course. It just depends on what they're discussin. in my experience with girls they'll talk to the one who'll give them the "desired" reaction and advice as opposed to "proper" advice but not all are like this of course. And I think youngwans are the only gender who would stay in an intimate group and hate at least one person in their immedite group of friends and still petty up to them. It boggled the mind. I haven't experienced this.


    Men just do things differently and in most cases in a very simplified manner.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    taconnol wrote: »
    My issue isn't so much with the concept of post-modernism, which is a useful concept, but with many of its proponents who spout utter nonsense and seem to revel in writing the most garbled opaque prose that is almost impenetrable to the reader.

    Oh. Well my problem is absolutely with the concept of postmodernism, and the inherent confusion within the school of thought, which causes nonsense to be spouted. Just briefly; the prefix 'post' denotes a concept which is not wholly its own, it still revolves around something else. Postmodernism is stuck in a orbital relationship with modernism, but without its own unique ideology and system of seeing the world. It is the garbled and decaying offshoots of modernism which should never have seen the light of day.


  • Options
    #68
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Oh. Well my problem is absolutely with the concept of postmodernism, and the inherent confusion within the school of thought, which causes nonsense to be spouted. Just briefly; the prefix 'post' denotes a concept which is not wholly its own, it still revolves around something else. Postmodernism is stuck in a orbital relationship with modernism, but without its own unique ideology and system of seeing the world. It is the garbled and decaying offshoots of modernism which should never have seen the light of day.

    LOL yes I agree with you! Now I am struggling to remember why I thought post-modernism was useful..(15,000 words into my thesis and the ole brain is short-circuiting...)

    I would add - what comes after post-modernism? post-post modernism?

    I suppose after every radical paradigm shift, like say WWII or the internet age, society likes to consider itself completely different from that which has gone before. After all - if modernity started in the printing press, what differentiates us from them? We like to think we have progressed immensely.

    Off topic? :pac:


  • Options
    #69
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    taconnol wrote: »
    LOL yes I agree with you! Now I am struggling to remember why I thought post-modernism was useful..(15,000 words into my thesis and the ole brain is short-circuiting...)

    I would add - what comes after post-modernism? post-post modernism?

    I suppose after every radical paradigm shift, like say WWII or the internet age, society likes to consider itself completely different from that which has gone before. After all - if modernity started in the printing press, what differentiates us from them? We like to think we have progressed immensely.

    Off topic? :pac:

    (I had a reply typed and then the network ****ed up, so if this seems incoherent its because I can't recreate it properly)

    The chances of a post postmodernism emerging are fairly slim, but some of postmodernism's most devout believers will posit it as a liklihood. The reality is that movements in history do not define themselves by what came before. We do not refer to Romanticism as post-neoclassical, nor modernism as post-romanticism. They are seperate and distinct movements of their own, usually defined in opposition to what came before. In postmodernism this is not the case, as I said it continues to orbit modernism. There is no distinct ideology. I don't believe it is always the case that society rethinks itself as different or modern, but a particular facet of our own society. This can be seen in its defining modernism as modernism, despite the obvious intrinsic silliness that such a term entails if one is to consider it for a while. It is as if at some point in the middle of the movement, it became aware of itself, and blinked. This blink was caused by the light of popular culture beaming down on the artists, granting them celebrity status, among other things. Since then postmodernism, if it can be defined as anything, has become the art of capitalism. It revels in both the capitalist modes of production and the accumulation of capital.
    We will not see a post postmodernist movement, whatever comes after this will be in opposition to this base, naked capitalist enterprise. It will again be a search for authenticity, as so many movements before it have been and which postmodernism has none of. It is likely to be anti establishment, and anti imperialist. It may build on the heritage of the (post)colonial thing that continues today in parallel with postmodernism, but true to the ideology of (some) modernism.

    (Off topic? Well I think the op will enjoy it at any rate)


  • Options
    #70
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    There might also be a strong environmental element to it, dare I say (dare I wish?)

    TBH, i studies this all 4 years go so you're doing a good job refreshing my memory :)


  • Options
    #71
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, if there is an ecological element to it then I don't think it will be in the form we have seen to date. There is a rather condescending bourgeois element to the way we are told to "consume less, fly less, and won't someone please think of the starving children in Africa". An attitude not dissimilar to that of humanitarians in nineteenth century Britain. In fact they also share a hypocritical streak as well. The humanitarians set out to help the poor degenerates, and ended up colonising even more peoples. The environmentalists pontificate on the vitalness of reform, but more and more suv's are put on the market every year. There is no coherence to the philosophy except when it suits. A case in point is Cameron the tory leader, who cycles to the house of Commons while someone drives behind him with his shoes and briefcase. Or his silly mini windmill on his house that used more energy being produced than it will ever produce for his home. If there is to be a real environmental movement then it cannot come from people like him and John Gormley, and must take the form of radical revolutionary thought and action-revolutionary praxis.



    (Brian peers across the horizon; Nope, the topic is plain out of sight!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    Wibbs wrote: »
    TBH I worry far more that there is more and more the spread of wussified, emotionally and socially retarded quasi men these days. Women I don't worry about by comparison.

    I don't mean to pick apart your posts, but these wussified, socially retarded men that you speak of are at the same time mostly sheep-
    Wibbs wrote: »
    I'm not so sure. Maybe you have more faith in humanity than I do:) I just think your average person likes to think they have more of a say than they do. Check out the feedback forum hereabouts:D

    Occasionally they may rant and rave to get it off their chest, but in general they like to be told what to do by others. There are far more sheep than lions. Both men and women. As a social animal we like to fit in which also adds to it. You look at the "alternative" types that every generation throws up. "We're so different". Eh no. You're not. You look act and talk exactly the same as every other "different" person you identify with.

    I think the gender thing will likely run along the same lines. There will be some move either way. Both sides will rant about what they want, but will do sod all about it(actually if they got what they wanted they would freak). You could even argue that feminism as it stands has given women as many headaches as advantages.

    Same old same old with some drifting thrown in...
    -as they have been throughout history. They are social animals trying to fit in. 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?


    brianthebard wrote: »
    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.

    I see the link between cycles, and sure, priests and religions throughout history have used this symbolism to milk money from their followers. But that doesn't means that the societies were "feminine societies"...it just means that there is a much higher chance that the God of hunting/agriculture/nature is probably going to be a female.

    And imo, something that has no beginning and no end is not a narrative?
    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.

    Howso? What makes that narrative masculine? Because it's got a plot?
    Dragan wrote: »
    "The funny thing about Dawkins is no one man's words have been given so much weight since Jesus." - Dragan

    Frankly, I see the words of Allah (through Mohommad), Shakespeare and Kurt Cobain as having more influence than Dawkins'.;)


  • Options
    #73
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »
    Howso? What makes that narrative masculine? Because it's got a plot?

    Frankly, I see the words of Allah (through Mohommad), Shakespeare and Kurt Cobain as having more influence than Dawkins'.;)


    All of them men and where are their female counterparts ?
    Oh yes women were not worth educating and didn't have the brain or talent for
    writing, art or music or inventing and it might give them ideas about thier worth and station and make them unfit for having babies and seeing to thier husbands needs.

    That is why the narrative has been masculine, thankfully for us all it is changing.


  • Options
    #74
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »
    I see the link between cycles, and sure, priests and religions throughout history have used this symbolism to milk money from their followers. But that doesn't means that the societies were "feminine societies"...it just means that there is a much higher chance that the God of hunting/agriculture/nature is probably going to be a female.

    And imo, something that has no beginning and no end is not a narrative?

    Howso? What makes that narrative masculine? Because it's got a plot?
    Narrative is a sequence of events. Cycles=female. Linear=phallic=male.
    A society built around a cyclical understanding of time becomes cyclical, which mimics the female cycle and is thus seen as female. A society constructed around linear concepts of time such as our own has a linear mindframe and is thus masculine.
    If you want to read a cyclical narrative I suggest the final chapter of Ulysses, it works on its own, you don't have to read the whole book to appreciate it.
    I wasn't talking about which gods they worship, although I do think that their gender follows on from the type of narrative a society constructs. (key word there, construct).


  • Options
    #75
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    I'll get back on topic...
    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Well, sometimes I really have a difficult time placing myself in the subordinate role that this statement implies, and it would seem that our Western culture has incorporated it into the role of being female (whether you believe in religion or not). Except for me, I was in an all male uni study group the other day at a coffee shop, and one of the lads (jokingly) asked if I would get the coffee for them.

    My housemate had me look at her car not so long ago as she heard a funny noise when turning the wheel. With you, B!ue, the implication from your study pal, was that you were the bringer of food and drink. With me, it was that I was the fixer of cars (I'm not a mechanic nor have I ever expressed any mechanical aptitude to my housemate).:)

    How do you feel about this? What role (or roles) is (or are) most comfortable for you when with a man?

    Those men who visit this LL forum, you are welcome to comment, too, about the roles you expect from your girlfriends or wives.

    What roles do you expect from a man, B!ue? Would you balk at dating an overly camp, effeminate man who is still attractive, interesting, and handsome for instance?:)


  • Options
    #76
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    All of them men and where are their female counterparts ?
    Oh yes women were not worth educating and didn't have the brain or talent for
    writing, art or music or inventing and it might give them ideas about thier worth and station and make them unfit for having babies and seeing to thier husbands needs.

    I didn't imply anything like by my response to Dragon...it was merely a (poor) tongue in cheek quip to his quote. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


  • Options
    #77
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    But what about your subconscious? Tricky bugger that subconscious. Maybe that cigar is looking like something else round about now.... :D


  • Options
    #78
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,282 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Tell that to Bill Clinton ;)


  • Options
    #79
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Narrative is a sequence of events. Cycles=female. Linear=phallic=male.
    A society built around a cyclical understanding of time becomes cyclical, which mimics the female cycle and is thus seen as female. A society constructed around linear concepts of time such as our own has a linear mindframe and is thus masculine.
    If you want to read a cyclical narrative I suggest the final chapter of Ulysses, it works on its own, you don't have to read the whole book to appreciate it.
    I wasn't talking about which gods they worship, although I do think that their gender follows on from the type of narrative a society constructs. (key word there, construct).

    Just because the penis is, usually, a straight piece of tissue when erect, does not imply that a society built around a linear concept of time is thus seen as masculine.

    Indeed, what you are talking about in your feminine/cyclical example, is a way of measuring time? By female cycles/moon cycles/seasons etc.

    Our way of measuring time in your linear example is still the same? By seasons/earth-sun rotation cycles. Even the atomic clock is based around the "cycle" of hydrogen atom vibrations, no?


  • Options
    #80
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    All any phallic symbol is, is a series of stacked circles.


  • Options
    #81
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »
    Just because the penis is, usually, a straight piece of tissue when erect, does not imply that a society built around a linear concept of time is thus seen as masculine.

    Indeed, what you are talking about in your feminine/cyclical example, is a way of measuring time? By female cycles/moon cycles/seasons etc.

    Our way of measuring time in your linear example is still the same? By seasons/earth-sun rotation cycles. Even the atomic clock is based around the "cycle" of hydrogen atom vibrations, no?

    You study science, don't you? :rolleyes: The linear example is different, it superimposes a straight line over the cyclical system. 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. The cycle of your atom vibrations isn't important, its what it adds up that is of note.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    brianthebard wrote: »
    But what about your subconscious? Tricky bugger that subconscious. Maybe that cigar is looking like something else round about now.... :D

    Does not compute. Please clarify. What do you mean...exactly?

    See, I have no subconcious, or sense of in-your-end-do.:)
    Zaph wrote: »
    Tell that to Bill Clinton ;)

    I heard that in the Oval Office, George W uses Clinton's old cigar box to keep his bible in. Now that would be a visual pun of a nun...instead of a cigar in her box, there is religion.


  • Options
    #83
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    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.


  • Options
    #84
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    brianthebard wrote: »
    You study science, don't you? :rolleyes: The linear example is different, it superimposes a straight line over the cyclical system. 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. The cycle of your atom vibrations isn't important, its what it adds up that is of note.

    I guess we'll just have to disagree. The moon's cycle around the earth is as valid a way of measuring time as the earth's rotation around the sun. One year does follow the next, and this day will be repeated again next year when the sun hits the same position in the sky.


  • Options
    #85
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Wibbs wrote: »
    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).

    TBH I think this is an Irish dynamic. IMO the relations between the genders is particulalry estranged, perhaps even belligerant, most likely due to gender segregation in schools, and perhaps the Irish matriarchy.

    I dont know if men dont like women, but it would appear that they feel more comfortable in the company of other men. Perhaps this is because they feel freer to be themselves and less worried about having to behave in front of the ladies.


  • Options
    #86
    anonymous_joe
    Registered Users Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭anonymous_joe


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    TBH I think this is an Irish dynamic. IMO the relations between the genders is particulalry estranged, perhaps even belligerant, most likely due to gender segregation in schools, and perhaps the Irish matriarchy.

    I dont know if men dont like women, but it would appear that they feel more comfortable in the company of other men. Perhaps this is because they feel freer to be themselves and less worried about having to behave in front of the ladies.

    Hmmm. I would say, and I know quite a few lads who'd agree with me, that they've had trouble being themselves in front of Irish women. Actually of my close friends, quite a few of them gave up on Irish women in general. You've an English girlfriend, a Scottish one, a Polish one. Not an Irish one amongst them. I don't think the single sex education helps.

    The most girlish girl I've ever known was a friends girlfriend ages ago, she went to an all-girls school and had exclusively female friends. Her and their interests were exclusively of the girlish type. At least the ones they were willing to share. Thus, no lad I know would ever be comfortable talking to them, merely because of the futility of it all.

    Regarding women in general, I personally would always want a girl whose equal to me in terms of relationships, etc. A partner, not a slave. There's no point spending your life with someone who'll just say yes to everything.


  • Options
    #87
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »
    My housemate had me look at her car not so long ago as she heard a funny noise when turning the wheel. With you, B!ue, the implication from your study pal, was that you were the bringer of food and drink. With me, it was that I was the fixer of cars (I'm not a mechanic nor have I ever expressed any mechanical aptitude to my housemate).
    The lad said it jokingly, knowing full well the stereotype of the female in the coffee service role, especially around men doing more "important things." He got the response he wanted, and laughed after ducking and scooting away from me quickly.


  • Options
    #88
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »
    I guess we'll just have to disagree. The moon's cycle around the earth is as valid a way of measuring time as the earth's rotation around the sun. One year does follow the next, and this day will be repeated again next year when the sun hits the same position in the sky.

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


  • Options
    #89
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I dont know if men dont like women, but it would appear that they feel more comfortable in the company of other men. Perhaps this is because they feel freer to be themselves and less worried about having to behave in front of the ladies.

    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.


  • Options
    #90
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    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.

    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. Maybe it's the same for a man, I don't know...but I agree that men have tighter friendships that are based more on trustworthiness and honour to each other. They seem more straightforward about who they like and who they don't like as their friends, whereas a lot of women seem to 'put up' with each other. How many times do you hear women compaining about some of their girlfriends being absolute bitches, yet they are still friends with them? It's almost superficial, we will use each other to get what we can, and unite only to bitch about the state of some other women be that another friend or a celebrity (or in their grief for Jesus, just to stay on topic...) I think that is why we were so easily put down for so long.
    It's only now that a lot of us have access to knowledge and can share ideas with each other that we can analyse and perhaps remedy or work with.

    I read a post here a while ago regarding female solidarity and it's non existance. Since then, I have been wracking my brains to see if this statement is true. I think it does exist, just not the the extent and obviousness of men, and unfortunatley I think women will only work together for so long. Please prove me wrong...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Setun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Setun


    An interesting Guardian article here.
    What's fascinating about the Aka is that male and female roles are virtually interchangeable. While the women hunt, the men mind the children; while the men cook, the women decide where to set up the next camp. And vice versa: and it's in this vice versa, says Hewlett, that the really important message lies. "There is a sexual division of labour in the Aka community - women, for example, are the primary caregivers," he says. "But, and this is crucial, there's a level of flexibility that's virtually unknown in our society. Aka fathers will slip into roles usually occupied by mothers without a second thought and without, more importantly, any loss of status - there's no stigma involved in the different jobs."

    So the Aka Pygmy tribe not only produce beautiful percussion music, but also perhaps lead the way in gender equality. That doesn't sound so primitive or tribal at all now does it? Now this is a society or people who have no direct access to mass media or world religion theory - they just live the way they live separate from external influence. On the other hand, gender roles in western society are so heavily ingrained into digital media, consumerism, social history and popular entertainment that it's incredibly difficult to salvage any ideas of equality from them. We are being bombarded with such an obscene amount of messages every day that it is very difficult to make up our own minds about issues such as this.

    As someone whose name I forgot once said, "If you want to change society, you have to invent something to do the changing for you." And now the tricky bit - how to invent something that equalises gender. Hmmm...


Advertisement