It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Women Conditioned To Be Weak By Society?

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


Exactly.


Men and women are supposed to be different, but those differences don't make one gender weaker than the other.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
No, my eyes aren't closed. I pay just as much attention to what people don't say as I do to what they do say. Men don't talk about their appearance as much as women, that much is true. But not talking about it and not obsessing over it are far from being the same thing.


Go to anywhere with a crowd of people, and tell me, on average, which gender is more likely to:

Spend more time, money and effort on their hair.
Spend more time, money and effort on their face and skin.
Wear jewellery.
Spent more effort to dress nicely.
Wear better shoes.
Have no unpleasant bodily odour.

The answer to all of the above is, of course, women.

Women have beauty magazines, hair magazines, make-up magazines marketed to them in numbers. You can be sure if there was a market for these same magazines for men, then you'd be seeing them in your local newsagent. There isn't, though.


Originally posted by Jenna
Sure you did. If you call claiming that men can do things just because while women only do them to attract men rationalizing.


I rationalised both of them. You just don't like the answers.
The fact is that the rationale for a man to get muscular or strong is much more practical than for a woman to try and get thin.

You really need to have a bigger think about this one.


Originally posted by Jenna
You said they were less worthy of respect, implying that they have less worth overall than someone who doesn't wear skimpy clothing.


I never said they were less worthy of respect, so please stop misrepresenting what I said.


Originally posted by Jenna
I don't know about that... Lingerie models get paid to stand around in their undies. Sounds like a pretty smart decision to me if you can land one of those jobs.


LOL.
Strangely enough, you'd generally expect lingerie models to be wearing, er, lingerie.

If they chose to wear revealing clothing in their off-time, then it'd be a different story altogether.


Originally posted by Jenna
Yet how many times do we hear people say something along the lines of "Well if she dresses like that, she deserves what she gets." You said something similar yourself actually.


No, you twisted around what I said because you're losing the argument. Either that, or you're struggling to keep up.

As mentioned previously, what I said could not be logically construed as what you're trying to make it out as, within the context of our discussion.

Once again:
''If she dresses like a slut, she's bound to be treated like a slut'' is not comparable to ''"Well if she dresses like that, she deserves what she gets."

The former is the acknowledgement that if a woman dresses revealingly or promotes herself as if she's ''easy'', then she's going to be treated as a sex object, and most men will look at her primarily as a potential easy lay.

The latter is a thinly veiled, poorly reasoned attempt at a ''justification'' for rape.


Please stop trying such underhand tactics, by making illogical connections between what I'm saying and what you want me to be saying.


Originally posted by Jenna
Ahem:


But a woman's ''success'' is quite often defined as emulating a male role in any given situation.



Without wanting to sound unkind, those are probably women that don't get too much attention from men anyway.


Those quotes bear absolutely no relation to what you were accusing me of saying.

You said: ''Ahh, but see then they are just trying to be like men and are only doing things that men find commonplace.''

Which is not the same as my first comment you quoted.
You were responding to my comment that women should use their intellect and personality first and foremost, if they want to be taken seriously.

That has nothing to do with my previous comment regarding women getting undue praise for a ''normal'' male accomplishment.

You are either getting the wrong end of the stick or intentionally misrepresenting my words.


You also said: ''And if they focus on their intelligence and personality and don't dress in skimpy clothing then they just aren't that attractive anyway. So you say, anyway.''

Which is not even close to my second comment you quoted.

There is absolutely nothing that precludes a good-looking woman making herself look feminine and sexy without dressing revealingly. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Try again.


Originally posted by Jenna
No, you know of no man who talks about his obsession.


Yes, the same way I know of no man that talks about his obsession with strawberries. I don't assume that someone has some secret obsession, unless there's evidence or reason for me to believe so.


Originally posted by Jenna
Men on the other hand will generally offer up the minimum necessary regardless of topic unless they're teaching someone how to do something and keep everything else to themselves, whether it's to keep from being seen as weak, obsessive or whatever.


It's because we're more practical.
No need for useless waffle from us, as you are correct that women do talk about anything !


Originally posted by Jenna
No moving the goal posts. We're not talking about the sports themselves or any of your other little hobby examples, we're talking about the sports stars.


There's no moving of the goal-posts.
I'm taking your word that some men get obsessed about sports stars, but the number is bound to be rather small.
I'm sure I could find the circulation numbers of the tawdry, gossip magazines, and the percentage of female readers to validate my point.


Originally posted by Jenna
Just as being able to recite every stat, every game played, every race won, along with the year and city it happened in is unhealthy and creepy.


It may be unhealthy, as it's taking a hobby too far.
All race statistics are widely publicised and in the public domain.
You are not understanding the difference between that and prying into sordid tittle-tattle and salacious revelations about someone that the reader has absolutely no connection to.


Originally posted by Jenna
As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, men are not these perfect creatures


Typical female logic.
Nowhere have I suggested or even intimated that men are without their faults. Better luck next time.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
EDIT POST: Double Post.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
Let's look at this idea.

Women who are "promiscuous" are considered "sluts", while men who are "promiscuous" are .... patted on the back and adding notches to their bedpost. To me, it is definitely conditioning of women and men that men are just "sewing their oats" while women are "being loose".

They are actually doing the EXACT same thing.


That's because no effort is required for any half-decent woman to have sex with a plethora of men.
She can come up to men and say: ''Do you want no strings-attached sex with me'' and 9 out of 10 men will take the woman up on the offer.

Reverse the situation, and unless the man is exceptionally good-looking, then you'll probably get only about 1 or 2 out of 100 women accepting the offer from a man. Also a considerable number of slaps on the face !

Women, by nature, are more sexually selective.
Even the sluttiest women aren't that promiscuous, compared to say the most promiscuous gay men.
Some gay guys have 500+ male partners a year, because we're talking about two people with male sex drives and attitudes to sex.
You'd probably struggle to find a woman that's quite at that level of sleeping around.


Also, let's not forget that the harshest judgement and criticism of women's promiscuity comes from other women.

Men actually like promiscuous women, because they give us more easy lays.
The problem lies later in life, when they want to settle down, and nobody's interested in them because of their ''colourful'' past.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vaevictis
why do women allow themselves to be subjugated by social conditioning telling them to - among other things - wear heels


The purpose of the High Heel is three fold:

1. To change the balance along the femur, and shin, resulting in the posterior being accentuated.

2. To symbolize weakness by being precariously off balance. (This acts upon the Males "Protective Instinct")

3. To compete with other women's shoes.


dresses


Once again, the purpose of the Dress is to draw attention, and symbolize a type of vulnerability... to arouse the male protective instinct.


and grow their hair long?


Again... to induce the protective instinct.

Ever since the invention of the wheel, and bronze, men have been cutting their hair short....

Both for combat advantages (Hair is easy to grab, and attached to your head), and for safety reasons (long hair is not a good idea around Gears and whatnot...)


Or, perhaps, this isn't subjugation at all? It's a thought-terminating-cliche, you might think, but is it really that obvious?


Women dress up to attract men... sounds fairly standard to me.


-Edrick



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
back in the early 80's and before, you would have a hard time finding a job in a bank or in many high quality offices if you were a women unless you were willing to wear high heels...I wasn't willing to wear such things, so, well, I noticed small things like that kind of discrimination.

when I was a kid, I spent quit a bit of time one year in school, at the principle's office...the had just instate a rule, the girls were to wear dressed to school.. I walked a half mile to school every morning and the was one section that was over a block long was flat with nothing to really block the wind, in the winter time, the snow drifts would be kind of high. there was no way my mom was gonna let me walk to school in a dress. the schools response to my mom's complaint....I could wear snowpants over my dress (we were poor, I didn't have snowpants), or I could change my clothes at school (ya, along with just about every other girl in the school all waiting in line to get into the bathroom to change her clothes in the morning and at the end of the day...while all the little boys sat at their desks, catching up on their home work, or beginning their lessons for that day!!
When I was in college I took an "F" on an assignment when the teacher decided that we should be dresses appropriately while we gave our reports in front of the class....I remembered that experience as a kid, and wrote my report on that, and just handed it to the teacher, dressed in my slacks...not a dress, which didn't meet her satisfaction.

so, well, at least in my experience, it was society forcing women to wear the danged things....or in my case, trying to!!!

[edit on 8-8-2010 by dawnstar]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Go to anywhere with a crowd of people, and tell me, on average, which gender is more likely to:


Well, now that depends on the crowd doesn't it.

At a fair the answer would be neither. Both genders would be in the coolest (temperature wise, not fashion wise) clothing they have, and both would have a bit of a smell if they'd been there for any length of time. Ball caps and pony tails would be everywhere. Not really signs of people spending a lot of time on their looks.

At a play or nice restaurant the answer would be both. Both genders would be dressed up in nice clothing, and both will have their hair fixed. And yes, spiking your hair, parting it, and that messy just-rolled-out-of-bed look guys do to their hair is all considered fixing it.

What was your point again? Oh, you were trying to say it's just women, or mostly women, who do that. Nope. Try again. Do we spend more money on it? Possibly, depending on the woman. But only because men can fix their hair with just gel or hairspray while some women think they need mousse, gel, hairspray, pomade, and that heat protection stuff you use before using a curling iron. Do we go through the process of fixing our hair more than men? Nope.


I rationalised both of them. You just don't like the answers.


Your idea of rationalization is that men almost always do things for themselves while women only do things to attract those men. Yeah, it's a rationalization. It's just not an accurate one.


I never said they were less worthy of respect, so please stop misrepresenting what I said.


So treating a woman like a slut based on her physical appearance is showing respect? You didn't outright say it, that's true. But you said repeatedly that if a woman looks like a slut she deserves to be treated like a slut.


If a woman wants to dress like a slut, then she can't really have too much of a problem if men ( and women ) treat her that way.


As I've said previously, I have no problem with women dressing like sluts ( it's entirely their prerogative ) but it's just completely incompatible with being taken seriously or treated equally in real-life.


If someone can't be treated equally because of their physical appearance, the only other option is to treat them as lesser.


No, you twisted around what I said because you're losing the argument. Either that, or you're struggling to keep up.


See above.


Those quotes bear absolutely no relation to what you were accusing me of saying.

You said: ''Ahh, but see then they are just trying to be like men and are only doing things that men find commonplace.''

Which is not the same as my first comment you quoted.



Main Entry: 1em·u·late
Pronunciation: \ˈem-yə-ˌlāt, -yü-\
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to strive to equal or excel b : imitate; especially : to imitate by means of an emulator
2 : to equal or approach equality with


To emulate is to imitate. Yes, you did indeed say women are just trying to be like men. That's what imitate and emulate mean. And yes you did indeed say that a woman accomplishing something is often just something men find commonplace. I'm amazed that you try to deny your own words when it's right there in black and white.


There is absolutely nothing that precludes a good-looking woman making herself look feminine and sexy without dressing revealingly. Quite the opposite, in fact.


And again. I'm curious why you say something and then deny it means what it says when it comes back up later on. Very curious indeed.


I'm taking your word that some men get obsessed about sports stars, but the number is bound to be rather small.
I'm sure I could find the circulation numbers of the tawdry, gossip magazines, and the percentage of female readers to validate my point.


You do realize it doesn't require a magazine for a large number of people to obsess over something, yes? Kind of a chicken or the egg thing. Which came first, the obsession or the magazine. I'd say the magazines made what was a passing curiosity into something more obsessive for many people.


You are not understanding the difference between that and prying into sordid tittle-tattle and salacious revelations about someone that the reader has absolutely no connection to.


Oh, I understand perfectly dear. You're just ignoring men aren't immune to prying into someone else's life. Over 80% of stalkers, for example, are men. Granted most stalkers stalk someone they know, but not all. (On a side note, I bring up stalking because it involves obsessing over someone else's private life.)


Typical female logic.
Nowhere have I suggested or even intimated that men are without their faults. Better luck next time.


Drop the condescension. There's no need for it.


Whereas men are much better socially and tend to be much more honest with someone if they don't like them


All in all, I can't think of anything that, on average, women are superior to men at, but I could list dozens of things that men are, on average, superior to women at.


Don't get me wrong, I believe in absolute social equality across the board, but realistically women will always play second fiddle to men in real-terms, due to nature.


But a woman's ''success'' is quite often defined as emulating a male role in any given situation.


Then there are all of your denials that men fall into obsessing over anyone or even their own appearance. The only circumstances in which you'll admit such behavior exists is if they are obsessing over themselves to get healthier and declare any who do it for other reasons to be few and far between even though it is demonstrably false.

According to you, men are better at everything and a woman's success is usually just emulating men. Meanwhile women only do things to attract men or make each other jealous but men do it just because. I don't expect you to understand how sexist those comments are, I really don't. But do not try to deny what you've already said and then twist it like I'm the one not understanding something here. If what I've quoted you saying above was not what you meant, then perhaps you should have worded it differently.

Can't have it both ways. Either men are these wonderfully perfect creatures who are superior at everything, don't fall into petty obsessions over anything, and work on their appearance only to get healthy, or men are just as human as we poor women folk are.

Regardless, I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by IandEye
 





to the other poster: the buddha's words didn't die you schmuck. selflessness is eternal- just ask moses, jesus, or.........mother theresa? I'm glad we agree on all this sexist bullship but your statement about the teachings being dead is just ignorant american narcissistic crap.



Words are meaningless and the Buddha did die and people did misinterpret his words...or to be more correct interpreted his words in there own way.
Selflessness in not eternal...moses, Jesus even mother Theresa will all be forgotten and there words gone into the aether given time...in a million years all that you know will be gone, and it's very likely that will happen in a couple of thousand years as well. So how is it eternal are you some sort of new age hippy Cristian that is high on weed, and plays a guitar to impress the girls. Everything dies including "selflessness" after all did you not say this to impress the girls.



a real man understand that death is part of life, just like plunging the toilet is part of owning a house. women just don't plunge.






whoa.pot smoking jesus playing the guitar to impress girls?
let me just say- you're an idiot. yes all those people will be forgotten- that's what selfless is you fool. i said that having kids is an extension of the ego and that it is the closest we can come to immortality. i didn't say it was a good thing.

do you think it takes strength to let go of cherished ideals or is that weakness?

this 'conversation' is over



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by amazed
 


Exactly.


Men and women are supposed to be different, but those differences don't make one gender weaker than the other.



hahaha i love it! youre so right-

seeing one's gender as superior is actually a weakness.

so true.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IandEye

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by amazed
 


Exactly.


Men and women are supposed to be different, but those differences don't make one gender weaker than the other.



hahaha i love it! youre so right-

seeing one's gender as superior is actually a weakness.

so true.


agreed...there's nothing weaker than being so insecure and/or desperate to believe you're superior to other people for whatever reason...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by noeyesnoearsnofacenofears

Originally posted by IandEye

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by amazed
 


Exactly.


Men and women are supposed to be different, but those differences don't make one gender weaker than the other.



hahaha i love it! youre so right-

seeing one's gender as superior is actually a weakness.

so true.


agreed...there's nothing weaker than being so insecure and/or desperate to believe you're superior to other people for whatever reason...


Lol. There's also something to be said against people who shy away from objective judgements because of their own delicate sensibilities. People like you are so liberal you would let Hitler walk free.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AProphet1233

Originally posted by noeyesnoearsnofacenofears

Originally posted by IandEye

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by amazed
 


Exactly.


Men and women are supposed to be different, but those differences don't make one gender weaker than the other.



hahaha i love it! youre so right-

seeing one's gender as superior is actually a weakness.

so true.


agreed...there's nothing weaker than being so insecure and/or desperate to believe you're superior to other people for whatever reason...


Lol. There's also something to be said against people who shy away from objective judgements because of their own delicate sensibilities. People like you are so liberal you would let Hitler walk free.


sorry, but i don't think i understand your post very well. what objective judgments am i shying away from?

at the Hitler comment -- i don't think you meant it to be taken seriously so i won't.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by noeyesnoearsnofacenofears]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by noeyesnoearsnofacenofears
 


So, let's see here...

1.) You don't/won't understand.

2.) You don't want to comment.

You really know how to not waste thread space



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AProphet1233
 


nope, i genuinely didn't understand your post clearly, and not sure what objective judgments you're talking about. i will comment if you don't mind being a little more specific on what ya mean, who knows maybe you do have a valid point that we can agree upon. i won't write off the possibility but would appreciate a little more clarity if it ain't too much to ask.

not trying to waste thread space, would just like to be sure on what I'm responding to~

i sincerely hope you're not just simply trying to offend me as that would be a waste of time on both our parts


lay your pancakes on the table sire and let us delve into it, hmmm?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AProphet1233
 


I didn't understand what you were getting at about objective comments either. So it's not just the other poster who doesn't get it.

Edit: Holy spelling mistakes, Batman!

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 



Men and women are supposed to be different, but those differences don't make one gender weaker than the other.



Title : Comparison of Male and Female Maximum Lifting Capacity,

Corporate Author : ARMY RESEARCH INST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE NATICK MA

A large influx of women into traditionally male fields of employment has drawn much attention to the strength differences between men and women. Two tests of isometric strength (handgrip and upright pull) and two tests of maximum lift capacity (a weight lift machine-IDL 152 and a weighted box lift MLC 132) were administered to 90 male and 107 female soldiers at the end of their Basic Training in order to examine differences in female/male (F/M) strength ratio. Skinfold measurements were made to obtain an estimate of lean body mass (LBM). Females exhibited 63% of the isometric strength and 55-59% of the lifting capacity of males. When the scores were normalized for body weight (BW) females were 75% as strong as males on isometric measures, and were able to lift 66% as much on IDL 152 and 72% as much on MLC 132. Comparison of the two lifting tasks revealed that on the average, males were able to lift 18% more weight and 24% more weight on the free lift than on the machine lift.

oai.dtic.mil...

weak (adj): Lacking the power to perform physically demanding tasks; lacking physical strength and energy.

Women are weaker than men.

Q.E.D.


Words do not mean what you feel that they should.

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by noeyesnoearsnofacenofears
reply to post by AProphet1233
 


nope, i genuinely didn't understand your post clearly, and not sure what objective judgments you're talking about. i will comment if you don't mind being a little more specific on what ya mean, who knows maybe you do have a valid point that we can agree upon. i won't write off the possibility but would appreciate a little more clarity if it ain't too much to ask.

not trying to waste thread space, would just like to be sure on what I'm responding to~

i sincerely hope you're not just simply trying to offend me as that would be a waste of time on both our parts


lay your pancakes on the table sire and let us delve into it, hmmm?


I REFUSE to mince words with the likes of you.

Stay out of my pancakes.

I assume your type doesn't eat bacon???



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AProphet1233

Originally posted by noeyesnoearsnofacenofears
reply to post by AProphet1233
 


nope, i genuinely didn't understand your post clearly, and not sure what objective judgments you're talking about. i will comment if you don't mind being a little more specific on what ya mean, who knows maybe you do have a valid point that we can agree upon. i won't write off the possibility but would appreciate a little more clarity if it ain't too much to ask.

not trying to waste thread space, would just like to be sure on what I'm responding to~

i sincerely hope you're not just simply trying to offend me as that would be a waste of time on both our parts


lay your pancakes on the table sire and let us delve into it, hmmm?


I REFUSE to mince words with the likes of you.

Stay out of my pancakes.

I assume your type doesn't eat bacon???


aye aye fair enough, i suppose there's no need to make a meal out of nothing.

at least that assumption wasn't as disastrous as my supposed tolerance for evil dictators...

well, just to stay on topic, men and women, different sides on the same coin, sums up my feelings on the issue.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



Main Entry: weak
Pronunciation: \ˈwēk\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English weike, from Old Norse veikr; akin to Old English wīcan to yield, Greek eikein to give way, Sanskrit vijate he speeds, flees
Date: 14th century

1 : lacking strength: as a : deficient in physical vigor : feeble, debilitated b : not able to sustain or exert much weight, pressure, or strain c : not able to resist external force or withstand attack d : easily upset or nauseated


There's the part you prefer of the definition. Here's the rest that can apply to people:


2 a : mentally or intellectually deficient b : not firmly decided : vacillating c : resulting from or indicating lack of judgment or discernment d : not able to withstand temptation or persuasion

Source

Women generally speaking are not physically capable of building the same muscle mass that men do, that much is true. Physical weakness and being weak in general however are not and never will be the same thing.

Edit: Words mean what they mean. Where you took the word weak to be completely literal and apparently to mean nothing aside from physical ability, the rest of the people in this thread have understood that the word 'weak', in this context, had nothing to do with physical strength or the lack thereof.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Women are society. If they are weak then they are weak by their own design. I never really thought women were very weak myself...just governed by emotional outbursts as opposed to rational thought.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join