Are Women Conditioned To Be Weak By Society?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Sorry to put it bluntly, but the only reason women are still around is because of their unique and necessary ability to give birth.

If men called also give birth, then natural selection would have made women extinct. And we'd all be gay.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Most of the men I know whimper over a cold, and you think they'd be able to go through childbirth? Ha! The human race would be very tiny indeed if women weren't around to carry and deliver the offspring.

Originally posted by Jenna
Yes, while also saying there are only three reasons women wear skirts and heels and that women only wear makeup for others to look at.

It's fair enough that you're getting confused, as I should have made myself clearer in previous posts.

My comments were referring to women with skirts that barely cover their nether regions and their fun-bags virtually popping out of a top. These are only worn for three possible reasons - but I'll add fourth of peer-pressure or fashion, if that makes you happier.

My comments about make-up refer to women who wear it out in public.
I can see that it might hold some appeal artistically to experiment with different colours and ideas in the front of your own mirror ( in fact I might try it myself some day ! ).

Originally posted by Jenna
According to whom? You? I know more women who couldn't possibly care less about seeking attention from or attracting the opposite sex than those who do care about doing so.

Without wanting to sound unkind, those are probably women that don't get too much attention from men anyway.
Like the typical bitter, feminist type, for example.

Originally posted by Jenna
In my experience, most women wear what they want because they like it not because men do. Thus the problem with generalizing.

There's no problem here.
You're just interpreting things differently.
Sadly, you are ignoring the obvious reasons that women wear revealing clothes. But I don't blame you for doing so.

Originally posted by JennaWhen you get right down to it, the best NASCAR driver, greatest basketball player, toughest football player (American football), or best 'insert sport here' player is all inconsequential nonsense. Being obsessed enough with a certain sport or player to the point where you just have to watch every game, start collecting memorabilia, and spend a large chunk of your free time reading/talking about a player or sport is just as silly as a woman spending all her time reading celebrity gossip.

There's a complete difference, though.
A man being interested in sport, I'd say, is more comparable to a woman reading magazines about fashion. They are both hobbies that may be inconsequential in the long run, but are perfectly healthy.

What I'm talking about is people who read gossip magazines about ''celebrities'' to glean any kind of personal information or sordid revelations about their private lives. That's not just unhealthy, but also a tad creepy.

Originally posted by Jenna
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

Most of the men I know whimper over a cold, and you think they'd be able to go through childbirth? Ha! The human race would be very tiny indeed if women weren't around to carry and deliver the offspring.

If women whinge so much about something like childbirth, then what chance would they have of killing a sabre-toothed tiger ?

The point I was making is if it wasn't for their unique ability to give birth to children, then women would have become extinct due to natural selection, because just about every trait that men and women share, men get the better deal and would be more likely to survive.

I'm sure there are some areas that women are better than men at, but compare the ability of an average man at any given trait with that of an average woman, and the man will come out on top more often than not.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
I know a few 'artistic' men who wear eyeliner, mascara and nailpolish if that counts? and no they are not gay. They must be less 'weak' than the other artistic men who may wish to express their creative sides this way but do not, as society frowns upon it, or maybe they think it would eliminate their chances of finding a woman? so they repress their naturally creative tendencies.

But here's the thing:
If you are claiming that people experiment with make-up for their own benefit, then the only way you can benefit from that is by looking in the mirror.
There's no reason to wear make-up in public, unless you want someone else to see it.

So I think it's you that is probably ignoring the plain and simple truth on this matter...

Dont be stupid. If I didnt enjoy the process of putting on makeup then i wouldnt wear it.

Looking in the mirror is not the only way you can benefit from make-up, i benefit from the sheer enjoyment of playing around with it and applying it, if i didnt then i wouldnt bother using it would I? My sole purpose for make-up isnt to impress men as much as your ego may like to believe that its the only reason women apply make-up.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Ahh, i see. Double standards. If men don't care about attracting the opposite sex, they're being practical. If women don't, they just aren't attractive anyway. If men obsess over sports stars they're just enjoying the "artistry of the game". If women obsess over any celebrity they're just being creepy. And regardless of what either sex does or doesn't do, men are better just by virtue of being born with male sex organs.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose..

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by IandEye

 

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
Gal. 5:22-23

if you were to classify these traits, would you consider them feminine, or masculine???
I'd say they were more on the feminine side really....
and that women are by nature, more spititually tuned (if you can find a church that has prayer meetings, got to one, and well take a not which gender is represented the greatest). and spiritually stronger.

when you say that "withholding love"....do you mean actual love, or do you mean sexual passion???



[edit on 4-8-2010 by dawnstar]

very briefly- it is by being in touch with the feminine that a man can be spiritual. it doesn't work for women- im sorry. how does being masculine (greedy, selfish, violent) help to make one more spiritual?

I speak of LOVE- but what is that? definitely NOT passion or desire.
love is self-less-ness..............it is understanding what "self" and "other" means. love is NOT a Disney movie- it is suffering, it is painful, it is the most difficult thing to experience in this life, yet it is truly our only teacher. sophistry and pontification- do you mind?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Jenna
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

Most of the men I know whimper over a cold, and you think they'd be able to go through childbirth? Ha! The human race would be very tiny indeed if women weren't around to carry and deliver the offspring.

If women whinge so much about something like childbirth, then what chance would they have of killing a sabre-toothed tiger ?

The point I was making is if it wasn't for their unique ability to give birth to children, then women would have become extinct due to natural selection, because just about every trait that men and women share, men get the better deal and would be more likely to survive.

I'm sure there are some areas that women are better than men at, but compare the ability of an average man at any given trait with that of an average woman, and the man will come out on top more often than not.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Unfortunately there seems to be a severe shortage of sabre toothed tigers in my neck of the woods, however....

I I had to take one down, I'd do so with 50 BMG rounds at 100+ yards. Many men, however, in order to prove their masculinity, would probably choose to engage the same tiger at point blank range armed only with a .380 or 9mm. I'd walk away without a scratch, but the man, if he survived, would come groveling looking for sympathy for his hard earned injuries, asking for assistance in healing his wounds, and an open ear to listen to how he killed an entire pack of sabre toothed tigers armed only with a pocket knife. (I work in Pediatrics, so I understand how to deal with all types of kids, including the extra large and sometimes obnoxious variety)

Regarding the ability of men to often come out ahead of women in most tasks, I have to disagree. I have pretty diverse knowledge in many different fields. While my current passion is children's medicine, I've worked in the past as a registered dental hygienist, certified paralegal, (i.e. "women's jobs") as well as possessing numerous IT certifications/designations, a current Series 7 and Series 63, and have worked as both a deputy sheriff and US military officer. (i.e. "men's jobs") Regardless of the field I worked, I've always excelled in my job and never faltered in my quest to be the best. Ability isn't controlled by that which is found between our legs as much as it is our mental attitude and drive.

reply to post by IandEye

I speak of LOVE- but what is that? definitely NOT passion or desire. love is self-less-ness..............it is understanding what "self" and "other" means. love is NOT a Disney movie- it is suffering, it is painful, it is the most difficult thing to experience in this life, yet it is truly our only teacher. sophistry and pontification- do you mind?

Weird but I agree that love is some sort of suffering- and not a Disney movie. But whats with the self-less-ness part if it serves itself by undisclosed an byway means, it is not really selflessness because it serves itself, so self-less-ness in this world is also a curse and not something that works in your favor, only in the favor of the selfish. So how can it teach anything other but what it represents "itself".

And females are on average more spiritual then males, mostly because on average males don't have that option, or time to be moody about things that wont do them any good. So females can't be more spiritual but they can think that they can be so, for the simple reason that they have the time and means to think so. So what do you mean by being in touch with the feminine as in physical ie female because the spiritual does not have a gender last time I checked. This thread is defiantly the weirdest I have read on ats and the questioned has not been answered yet, are women conditioned to be week by society. I have to say no since females judge society from there perspective, and males judge society from there perspective. Then society does not condition anything really, it merely supplies to each perspective what it wants. So there is a female society and a male society, within a society of perspectives.

I don't get why people have the notion that females are more spiritual than males.

The greatest spiritual minds of history have practically all been men, how do you account for this?

Unless you're talking a frame of mind independent of reality and actions...

[edit on 4-8-2010 by AProphet1233]

Originally posted by AProphet1233
I don't get why people have the notion that females are more spiritual than males.

The greatest spiritual minds of history have practically all been men, how do you account for this?

Unless you're talking a frame of mind independent of reality and actions...

[edit on 4-8-2010 by AProphet1233]

You have answered your own question. 'History'

Women were not taken seriously throughout our recent history, therfore were not given the podiums which men had to voice there views.

I am not saying women are more spiritual than men, i dont agree, i think men and women have the capacity to be equally spiritual, and that goes for wisdom, intelligence etc also.

The reason why history doesnt give us so many female 'greats' is because women never had the chance to prove their value and share their views and knowledge with the world.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


Yeah, I suppose His-story is that nightmare from which we are all trying to awake - Joyce.

I've noticed that female novelists don't get enough credit.

I don't know about that there are many women who have many values and views of the world, all that they would need to do is get into history by doing historical things. Though I wouldn't recommend it from what I have read of history it's pretty much opinions on why things are the way they are or opinions they had. Or worse if you really wanted to change history you usually have to die for this cause or that cause. You know I used to think that females had more sense then that, if any want to be in the history books be there when something big happens like WW3 or something like that. As for the rest, history is opinions by those who weren't there, therefore they survived and got to write about it in some books.

I'm going to refer people to a post I made, I think on the previous page, in hopes that it makes a difference.

The differences between men and women we can use to strengthen each other. Our differences we can embrace and use to unite.

Instead, people seem more focused on using these differences to set each other apart, to position themselves.

"Women are better at this than men!"
Oh yea?
YEA!
"Well, Men are better at this"

(Repeat stereotypes and prejudices at your own discretion)

Say you were tasked with a dialogue taken from this thread to evaluate and describe the conflict strategies that were used to escalate the problems. How would you respond to this? What would your observations be when viewing from an outside perspective?

Originally posted by Ldya_Tuatha
Dont be stupid. If I didnt enjoy the process of putting on makeup then i wouldnt wear it.

Thanks for proving my point, love.
You can enjoy putting on make-up without wearing it out.
Instead, a woman decides to wear it out with the ultimate goal of impressing.
I don't know why you're in denial over this. It's not a criticism, but rather an observation that backs up my point.

Sorry, you've lost me somewhere in between ''I benefit from the sheer enjoyment of playing around with it and applying it'' and the fact that after you've finished it, you apparently feel the necessity to show it off to strangers.

Originally posted by Jenna
Ahh, i see. Double standards. If men don't care about attracting the opposite sex, they're being practical. If women don't, they just aren't attractive anyway.

There's no double standards.
Both men and women are interested in attracting the opposite sex.

My point is and always has been, that women ( on average ) obsess over it much more and in many cases define themselves by their attractiveness to men.

This is obvious right from school, where girls' popularity has a strong correlation with their prettiness, whereas boys who aren't that good-looking can still be high in popularity if they are funny, confident, successful at sports etc.

Obsessing over their weight and body is another thing that shows many women's inbuilt desire to please or attract men.
Of course, some men are obsessed with going down to the gym and getting ''ripped'', but you'll find that often the men do that for practical reasons too, so as people are less likely to pick a fight with them or so as they can defend themselves better.

The original issue of the clothing is yet another example of women brazenly using to their sex appeal to attract men/ get one up over their ''sisters''.
For a woman to wear a top that has her fun-bags virtually bursting out, means she can't really be taken seriously.

All of this leads back to my original point that women are the weaker and submissive gender.
I don't expect you to acknowledge that, as you are probably brought up believing that women are truly equal to men.
But, for us that can see through the veneer of actual, real-life equality, then the truth soon becomes clear.

Originally posted by Jenna
If men obsess over sports stars they're just enjoying the "artistry of the game". If women obsess over any celebrity they're just being creepy.

As I've previously pointed out, there's a complete difference between looking up to a sports star for their abilities, and poking your nose into someone's private and personal life.
It's especially creepy when the people that these women are reading about have absolutely no personal connection to them, and they are only interested because the magazine tells them they are ''celebrities''.

I myself, have personally heard gossip and tittle-tattle about me from some of my female co-workers that I don't even know too well !

Originally posted by Jenna
And regardless of what either sex does or doesn't do, men are better just by virtue of being born with male sex organs.

I think you've finally got it. That's the girl.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by IandEye
how does being masculine (greedy, selfish, violent) help to make one more spiritual?

I agree that violence is more of a masculine trait, but I have to disagree that selfishness and greed are. I think these are two traits where there is genuine equality.

Especially greed; for example, look how many women degrade themselves through pornography, prostitution, stripping etc.
While I have sympathy for the women who feel that have to do this kind of thing through necessity, it can't be denied that many women willingly compromise their self-respect for a bit of money.

Also, how many twenty-year-old studs marry a 60, 70, 80-year-old rich woman for her money, as opposed to the number of young women that do the same with elderly men ?

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
Unfortunately there seems to be a severe shortage of sabre toothed tigers in my neck of the woods, however....

I I had to take one down, I'd do so with 50 BMG rounds at 100+ yards. Many men, however, in order to prove their masculinity, would probably choose to engage the same tiger at point blank range armed only with a .380 or 9mm.

I was referring to a few thousand years back, though, when our firearms capabilities were probably limited to a sling-shot.

You're right, though, that there are some men that will do stupid things in an unnecessary attempt to prove their masculinity, but I believe that natural selection eventually takes care of them, too.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
Regarding the ability of men to often come out ahead of women in most tasks, I have to disagree. I have pretty diverse knowledge in many different fields. While my current passion is children's medicine, I've worked in the past as a registered dental hygienist, certified paralegal, (i.e. "women's jobs") as well as possessing numerous IT certifications/designations, a current Series 7 and Series 63, and have worked as both a deputy sheriff and US military officer. (i.e. "men's jobs") Regardless of the field I worked, I've always excelled in my job and never faltered in my quest to be the best. Ability isn't controlled by that which is found between our legs as much as it is our mental attitude and drive.

Sorry, but you've faltered on logic here.
Your point would have been more valid if I said that all men are superior to all women at certain things. I've stressed that I'm talking about averages.

Clearly, the world's strongest woman would easily beat me in an arm-wrestling competition, but that doesn't disprove the fact that, on average, men are physically stronger than women.

Also, you trivialise the issue by stating: ''Ability isn't controlled by that which is found between our legs as much as it is our mental attitude and drive. ''

It's absurd to infer that the differences between men and women can be broken-down to something as superficial as having different external sexual organs.
There's a number of biological differences between men and women, some of which may lead to, on average, differing mental abilities and capabilities between genders.

that's because the economy is still has the remnents of what was....
a society and economy that kept women more or less in a financially dependent state.
look at the clothing women were expected to wear pre 1900......
again, pretty much making sure that the women would have to be weak and dependent.

there's more rich old men than there are rich old women!

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
The reason why history doesnt give us so many female 'greats' is because women never had the chance to prove their value and share their views and knowledge with the world.

There's an element of truth in that, but it still doesn't explain the huge difference in ''great minds'' between genders.

Even in a traditional female role such as cooking, you'll find that most of the top chefs are men.

That's still no excuse for nowadays, though, where I don't exactly see a 50/50 ratio between genders in many fields of excellence...

Originally posted by dawnstar
that's because the economy is still has the remnents of what was....
a society and economy that kept women more or less in a financially dependent state.
look at the clothing women were expected to wear pre 1900......
again, pretty much making sure that the women would have to be weak and dependent.

I'm wondering just how many more years these tired excuses can be rolled out by women before they have to face the facts...

It's 2010, not 1950 !


It's also because many women are happy to trade sex for money ( effectively prostitution ), even if that means marrying a 70-year-old millionaire.

Which further proves my point about women willingly submitting to a dominant male.
The reason most men wouldn't marry an old lady is because:

1. It's pretty sick ! Especially thinking about the bedroom department. And,
2. Most men want to achieve something themselves, without having to rely on leeching off someone else.

Many women, however, appear to want to be able to achieve something in life through living off someone else, rather than having to do their own hard work.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]