Are Women Conditioned To Be Weak By Society?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I don't mean to misrepresent you, but you seem to have a bit of a false dichotomy going on there.
The only alternative to dominant, strong, powerful men is not only fearful, weak, socially inept men.
I just wanted to clarify that from a purist's point of view...


No problem. I just assumed since you were also making wild assumptions, (all women like x....when in fact you cannot generalize that way) I could too for sake of argument.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It doesn't matter how we want to dress it up.
Women are the weaker, submissive gender, and men are the stronger, dominant gender. That's nature, not nurture.

That's why realistic gender equality can never work.
Men, on the whole, will always come out on top and women will always play second fiddle.


On the whole, you may be right. But again, all women are not x, and all men are not y. So while we will never have "true gender equality" in the sense that women and men will both be the same, and interested in the same things, I dont think thats what "equal rights" or "equal opportunity" is all about. It just means that the percentage of women who are able to compete with men on their terms be allowed to do so. Many wont want to. Nature has ingrained many women with a desire to have men fetch and carry for them, trading with other favors for those. Which is fine.

Men are not universally athletic and dominant. Some are quite unimposing and submissive themselves. As I see it, the idea of equal opportunity is much like that proposed in Platos Republic, let ability sort people. Not the fears or desires of one gender. Most women will not move from their position, but some will, and society will be better for it if all who are worthy are doing what they do best, and doing so by their own choice rather than force.

The women who like the traditional roles will be happier in them because it is their choice, not imposed, and the women who do not will have the opportunity to do what they do best.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
That's the thing: while women have the possibility of submitting themselves to potentially 50% of the population, few men have the chance or desire of doing that.


Im not sure what you mean by this. I have met many submissive men in my life. In fact MOST men are submissive most of their lives. Which is likely why they idealize the alpha male as they do, and why they long for a submissive partner.

I have never met a "natural" alpha, (someone who had the grand trine of social, physical and economic power) who concerned himself (or herself) with dominance or submission at all. Why should they? No one who really and truly is dominant HAS to think about it much.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The romance novel formula ( except for a lucky few ) is just fiction, and that's all it is.
To hold out and imagine it could be a realistic proposition, sounds like irrationality.


Its no more unrealistic than the male ideal of a stunningly beautiful female with huge breasts and an insatiable desire to offer complete submission to a computer geek of at best delta quality. Which is why so many men fail to find that perfect female they long for and end up complaining on the boards that feminism has ruined the world.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'd ideally like a beautiful blonde lady in her early twenties that shares my interests and ''held out'' until she found the right man. An interest in cooking and cleaning dishes would be appreciated too ( j/k ).


See?


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I know there's a 1% chance of that scenario ever happening, and I can't imagine why it would be remotely interesting reading an account of a fictional character that that did happen to.


Men dont, generally speaking, care to read accounts of said females. They care to look at pictures of said females. Naked and in sexually submissive postures. A lot.




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by OuttaTime
 
what you dont think so?
I thought that was the way it is
??
aren't women servants to man?



The way it is? So you're telling me you can't fend for yourself and that you would rely on 'the weaker' gender to wait on you? Not only did you step in that misconception, but you got it all over you. Nobody is meant to be a servent to anyone else, if that's what you're implying.
I've met the 'women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen' types before, and their ideoligies couldn't be more alien to me than a sci-fi novel.
Wait, are you one of those 'I'm the man of the house' ego drivers?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You are missing the common denominator. Partially because of your own bias. (Which is natural)

Both the celebrities women indulge in, and the sports figure the males indulge in exemplify the traits that will get someone a high quality mate.


No, not at all.
I don't admire footballers ( soccer players ), cricketers, rugby, tennis or snooker players because of their ''manly'' qualities that may get me laid.
I admire them for their skill and artistry within their disciplines.

You are comparing chalk with cheese.


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderYou can say it is the art and mastery, but why is throwing, kicking and batting balls around with various body parts and/or implements artful? Because coordination and strength appeal to women. And so men revel in their ability to compete amongst themselves to prove their masculinity and virility.


Sorry, this is complete and utter nonsense that I assume comes from someone that doesn't truly understand the appeal in sport.

''Throwing, kicking and batting balls around'' sadly shows your ignorance in regards to the beauty of sport.
The suggestion that co-ordination ''appeals'' to women is not true, too, and has no backing ( otherwise male gymnasts would be the height of female fantasy ).


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderWomen so inclined focus on the things that males tend to find alluring in a sex partner, breast size, the way their legs look (hence the painful shoes) or how their butts swing, a youthful and attractive appearance, and the adornments they wear.


No, women tend to read gossip magazines and such to compare themselves with other women in them ( either favourably or negatively ).
This is one of the reasons why women have so many self-esteem and self-confidence issues


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderNote that female athletes have little appeal to women (or men, honestly) unless they are also remarkably beautiful.


Women athletes aren't interesting to men ( in a sporting sense ) purely because they deliver an inferior version of the men's sport.
Who'd want to watch the top female tennis player, when she'd get beaten 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 by Rafa Nadal ?
Who'd want to watch the top 100-metre female runner when she'd get beaten by over a second if she was running against Usain Bolt ?


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderAnd if it is the art and mastery that were drawing men to sports, rather than the sexual selection thing, why do they not wax poetic about female athletes? I have not heard many male odes to an unattractive female athletes artistry or mastery over a ball.


LOL.
Answered above.


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderBoth genders are
Hence, women devote themselves to celebrity rubbish, fashion, beauty, etc., because those skills or qualities are preferred by males (sexually), over mastery with a ball. And vice versa.


That's not entirely true.

Me and my friends, almost unanimously concur that the one trait that we'd like to disappear from women is their bitchiness.

This gossip and celebrity talk just panders to it.

It's such an obnoxious trait, and really makes one look less favourably or more dismissively towards a woman that displays such immature and self-obsessed behaviour.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 

Well if truth be told,. Both my wife and I work.
she puts in about 50 hrs in a week at her own biznass
and I do my share of that elsewhere.

I just couldn't resist jumping into a den of lioness with something taunting.

However I am the better cook,.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by OuttaTime
 

Well if truth be told,. Both my wife and I work.
she puts in about 50 hrs in a week at her own biznass
and I do my share of that elsewhere.

I just couldn't resist jumping into a den of lioness with something taunting.

However I am the better cook,.


Ahh, I see. No prob then. Had me going for a minute there



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
I love my heels, love dressing up nice, love my cosmetics etc. Its not to impress men as a few have mentioned on this thread. I wear whatever the hell I want to wear whenever the hell I want because it makes ME feel good.


It makes you feel good, purely because you're trying to impress someone else. And that's that.
There's no way that what makes you feel self-confident does so purely because you are wearing it on your own.

I feel very confident on occasions when I dress up in a dinner-jacket and dickie-bow. Strangely enough, I never wear that ensemble for my own benefit...


Originally posted by Lady_TuathaYou cant say that women who wear heels and skirts only do so to get mens attention or to make other women jealous, because that is certainly not true of all women.


Ok then, I'll stand to be corrected if you can inform me of a reason why women would wear high heels to draw attention to their uncovered legs, low-cut tops to make people look at their fun-bags, and a very short skirt to get men thinking about their ____... It's got to be a reason that differs from:

1. Low self-esteem and self-confidence.
2. Getting men to look at them in a primarily sexual way.
3. Making other women jealous.

I await your reply with interest...


Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
Its like saying that every man that sports a certain trendy haircut only does so to attract women.


No, that's not the same at all.
You're talking about peer-pressure and cultural influences on a choice to have your hair styled.
Not quite the same as ''feeling sexy'' about how you dress ( that in itself sounds pervy ).

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaTime
 
In todays world,. I'd really hate to think there are guys actually like that..



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by OuttaTime
 
In todays world,. I'd really hate to think there are guys actually like that..



Unfortunately I've met a few. They're some seriously challenged people with really bad control and dependency issues. Some guys just can't figure out how to respect or treat a lady.... and they wonder why their relationship is falling apart.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
Its like saying that every man that sports a certain trendy haircut only does so to attract women.


I will agree with that. I'm a guy who happens to love my long hair because of how it feels on my head. It's like having a friend right there with me, and from my point of view, the hair slightly obscures the top part of my vision. It's like a comfy blanket.

Oh, and the women love it too because it goes with my puppy dog persona. Lot of older women are very attracted to me. If a 30 year old or so woman wants to be the leader in bed, I would be sooo down.



-Sol

Edit to add: oh snap, what was the point in all that? Let's see...

Not all women are submissive. Not all men are dominant. Everyone is unique. There we go.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by SolarE-Souljah]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
No, not at all.
I don't admire footballers ( soccer players ), cricketers, rugby, tennis or snooker players because of their ''manly'' qualities that may get me laid.
I admire them for their skill and artistry within their disciplines.


So you think. Like the women who think they like dresses and beauty stuff because they just do. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, as the case may be) we do not need to know why we do the things we do in order that they work.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Sorry, this is complete and utter nonsense that I assume comes from someone that doesn't truly understand the appeal in sport.


Ah but I do understand the appeal of sport. In pretty fair technical detail. I am just not emotionally involved with it, which allows me to not be biased in my consideration.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The suggestion that co-ordination ''appeals'' to women is not true, too, and has no backing ( otherwise male gymnasts would be the height of female fantasy ).


If they werent so short, and were it a more socially dominant game, played in packs, they might be. Short, (sorry short guys, Im just reporting) is a big handicap in sex appeal for men.

And the idea that coordination carries sex appeal does have backing. This study;

ur.rutgers.edu...

and we also know that symmetry (and hence coordination) is indicative of sporting performance,

cat.inist.fr...

There are actually quite a few studies on the topic of symmetry and beauty, health, genetic quality, performance, and sex appeal. If you like that sort of thing. I do.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
No, women tend to read gossip magazines and such to compare themselves with other women in them ( either favourably or negatively ).
This is one of the reasons why women have so many self-esteem and self-confidence issues


Maybe you just dont understand the appeal of fashion and beauty. I assume this comes from someone who just doesnt understand the appeal of this sort of thing.


Men allow their "unfavorable comparisons" with sports figures to affect them too. They go out and try to recreate some of the "artistry" they see on the field with their equally out of shape mates and end up on the couch with herniated discs and torn knee ligaments, rather than bruised self confidence. Men tend to be less self critical, often to the point of delusion, and so have less esteem issues in general.

www.psychologytoday.com...

www.wdc-econdev.com...

www.newsweek.com...


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Women athletes aren't interesting to men ( in a sporting sense ) purely because they deliver an inferior version of the men's sport.


Mmmm hmmmm. Im sure that must be it.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Me and my friends, almost unanimously concur that the one trait that we'd like to disappear from women is their bitchiness.


Unfortunately, in reality, you are going to choose sex appeal over temperament, and that trait is unlikely to be selected out of the gene pool.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It's such an obnoxious trait, and really makes one look less favourably or more dismissively towards a woman that displays such immature and self-obsessed behaviour.


Because assuming that women should adapt their behavior to your liking is not immature and self obsessed thinking. Lol.

Nice debating with you. Not that I really feel I have gotten anywhere, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
On the whole, you may be right. But again, all women are not x, and all men are not y. So while we will never have "true gender equality" in the sense that women and men will both be the same, and interested in the same things, I dont think thats what "equal rights" or "equal opportunity" is all about.


I never said that all women were this, or all men were that,
On average, men are going to superior at most jobs around - are their any jobs that women, on average, would be better than men at ( other than the obvious ) ?
Yet there's dozens of jobs that men, more often than not, will be more suitable candidates in, than women. Thus, gender equality ( as in both being equal in the real world ) will never happen in the work-place.

As previously mentioned by me, I believe whole-heartedly in social equality and equal rights for both genders, but ''equal opportunities'' is nonsense, as it will result in ''token'' places for women in the work-place.

Most of us would agree that two-parent families are better for the child, so we'll just end up with a majority of stay-at-home mothers, due to women's uncompetitiveness in the workforce.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Men are not universally athletic and dominant. Some are quite unimposing and submissive themselves. As I see it, the idea of equal opportunity is much like that proposed in Platos Republic, let ability sort people. Not the fears or desires of one gender. Most women will not move from their position, but some will, and society will be better for it if all who are worthy are doing what they do best, and doing so by their own choice rather than force.


I agree.
I believe in absolute equality.
Why do we have so many people crying about the low percentage of women in the workforce, or the imaginary ''glass ceiling'' when it's clear that women will always form a minority in the work-place, due to their inferior skills compared to men.


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderIm not sure what you mean by this. I have met many submissive men in my life. In fact MOST men are submissive most of their lives. Which is likely why they idealize the alpha male as they do, and why they long for a submissive partner.


LOL.
I think you need to meet some more real men.
In fact, I think from what you say, that a lot of the men that you know must me fags.
Just about every ''normal'' man is not submissive.
The appeal of the alpha male for another man, is someone that you look up to and want to be like. That's all.


Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderIts no more unrealistic than the male ideal of a stunningly beautiful female with huge breasts and an insatiable desire to offer complete submission to a computer geek



Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderSee ?


LOL.
The surreptitious inference that I'm a ''computer geek'' in your first comment is feeble.
And your latter comment shows your lack of ingenuity or ability to make a point on this issue.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Ok then, I'll stand to be corrected if you can inform me of a reason why women would wear high heels to draw attention to their uncovered legs, low-cut tops to make people look at their fun-bags, and a very short skirt to get men thinking about their ____... It's got to be a reason that differs from:

1. Low self-esteem and self-confidence.
2. Getting men to look at them in a primarily sexual way.
3. Making other women jealous.

I await your reply with interest...

While I'm far from what most would consider a "foo foo" type girl, sometimes I just feel like prettying myself up and celebrating my feminine being. I'm not out to find a man, nor am I trying to compete with other women, I'm just enjoying a side of me that rarely sees the light of day.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I definitely think that society has influence on the way women present themselves. Personality wise I'm one of the most masculine people I know. I'm currently studying in a program which is severely dominated by men (about 100 men to 5 women), focus more on building muscle than my weight when I go to the gym, and typically play video games and tabletop games (I'm a big nerd, I deny nothing) in my spare time.

A couple years ago in high school I had short hair and wore baggy, masculine clothing and no make-up. I was treaded as and considered the weird kid. After a while I got bored with my old fashion so I grew out my hair, tried some make-up and started wearing skirts and frilly pink shirts. Nothing else about me has changed yet the the way I'm treated has. It's been a long time since anyone has insulted my appearance and I get more male attention then I wish. But I'm still stubborn and will continue to dress however I want until I'm bored with it.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
So you think. Like the women who think they like dresses and beauty stuff because they just do. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, as the case may be) we do not need to know why we do the things we do in order that they work.


Last time I checked many women enjoyed and appreciated the artistry of sport.
Just like many women enjoy the paintings of Monet, Canaletto, Picasso etc.

To compare reading and enjoying tawdry stories from gossip magazines, with artistry, shows a distinct lack of class and appreciation.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If they werent so short, and were it a more socially dominant game, played in packs, they might be. Short, (sorry short guys, Im just reporting) is a big handicap in sex appeal for men.


Nonsense.
Many of the Eastern European guys aren't that short, at all. And they've got great muscularity in their upper torsos.

So, I'm afraid your point is pretty much invalid.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And the idea that coordination carries sex appeal does have backing. This study;

ur.rutgers.edu...

and we also know that symmetry (and hence coordination) is indicative of sporting performance,

cat.inist.fr...


Can you give me a brief appraisal of the scientific papers that you are linking to on this subject, please ?

Obviously, I'm assuming that you've read this research, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it.

In your own words, what do you think are the best arguments and facts in this research to explain the sexual attraction of ''coordination and symmetry'' between sexes ?

What do you think were the pros and cons of the various methods that they used in this research ?


Until you come up with valid answers to my questions, then I suggest you don't bother me with your nonsense, and stop wasting my time.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Can you point out where in my previous posts that i mentioned wearing heels and skirts was to feel confident or sexy? I dont need to be wearing heels to feel either confident or sexy, im perfectly happy with myself.

I wear what I wear because i like it. I like art and experimenting with colours, fabrics, textures etc, all these things make me feel good.

Like i said before in a previous post, if I were to be stranded on a desert island with no men I would still wear heels and dress the way I dress, just because there is no men on the island it would not stop me from doing something I enjoy, which is dressing up and having fun with fashion, experimenting with clothes and colours, and yes i love shoes, i love the way they look, i love the heels and i love how pretty they can be. My love of clothes and shoes has absolutely nothing to do with men im afraid. It has more to do with being creative and having fun with clothes and how i look.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Another one of those threads eh, well from my experience females like the alpha male type, whatever that is from brad pit to ron jeremy I quess since they seem to get lots of chicks, so I guess all females, there dressing and striving is so as to not actually put in the work involved with doing much but "fishing" for a certain type of fish, looks interests and the so called feeling factor, and everything else is bait. Ultimately it comes down to certain things like money looks and attitude that they are fishing for.


Males on the other hand do all that they do to ultimately attract a mate only the majority is not an alpha male like brad pit or ron jeremy, so therefore they can not afford to fish for mates like females. So they strive for things that will give them an edge in the market and ultimately it comes down to certain things like money looks and attitude. And yes sports and all that is just something that gets you loots of moneys and things that attract females, if you enjoy hitting a little ball with a club or throwing a ball around good for you, it ain't that hard as males make it out to be and ultimately if it didn't pay money no one would be doing it other then once in a while.

So who exactly is strong in this when everything that females do is known why they do it, what exactly is the problem other then being self centered as females are. Same goes for males it ain't no secret why anybody does the things they do. In fact it seems that it's more like we all have conditioned ourself to certain things that we can't break away from them or even question them, some even wonder why they do as they do, whatever the case, its old and boring to me, same old same old.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by galadofwarthethird]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Yeah, unfortunately I also must say the answer is 'yes.' I once saw a group of 20-year-old women, tall blondes, scared into submission by a group of 10-year-old cowboys. I kid you not. Commands like, 'sit, girls' and 'crouch, girls' were common and the girls just complied. For some reason, Freud might've been right about something and heels, long hair, dresses, what have you can really epitomize symbolic castration (i.e. weakness, powerlessness) of women. Must be that 'be a good girl' syndrome, I don't know.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
Can you point out where in my previous posts that i mentioned wearing heels and skirts was to feel confident or sexy? I dont need to be wearing heels to feel either confident or sexy, im perfectly happy with myself.


You didn't need to mention it, love.
The motives for wearing such things are obvious.

While I accept that some skirts and dresses may be comfortable to wear, heels certainly ( so I'm told ! ) aren't - compared to other footwear.

As you said earlier: ''I love my heels, love dressing up nice, love my cosmetics etc.''

Now why one earth would anybody wear cosmetics other than for anyone else's benefit ?
There's absolutely nothing that can be personally gained from wearing make-up.


Of course, there's nothing wrong with enjoying fashion. Nor dressing how you feel comfortable.

But to deny that you don't wear feminine clothing or make-up with the ultimate intent of stirring attention seems to me to be a tad dishonest.

I bet the first day you were on that desert island, you'd be crying out for trainers and tracksuit bottoms.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
While I'm far from what most would consider a "foo foo" type girl, sometimes I just feel like prettying myself up and celebrating my feminine being. I'm not out to find a man, nor am I trying to compete with other women, I'm just enjoying a side of me that rarely sees the light of day.


Sorry, but that still falls into either category ''1'' or ''2''.

Amazing how men never seem to feel like ''prettying up'' their masculine side, instead we usually just wear what's practical.

We don't define ourselves by how attractive we are to the opposite sex.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by vaevictis
 


I think the Op is confusing subjugation with an expression of femininity.

As a guy I certainly wouldn't be attracted to a women who appeared or acted as a man... and I know my girlfriend wouldn't be attracted to me if I dressed and acted like a woman. Opposites attract. It's that simple. Why try to dissect something natural and twist it into something bad.

The Ops post is a classic example of how rampant political correctness is destroying the fabric of our society.

IRM





new topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join