Women destroyed an advanced ancient civilization.

reply to post by redhorse


I agree.

The last reason, and in my opinion, probably the largest motivator, is that men are more afraid of a womans sexuality than anything else on this planet. This is how women control men and they know it. That control mitigates, or even completely negates their physical advantage, and can even allow a woman to manipulate a man in spite of all of the social and religious controls and limits on her behavior.

I agree with that especially. They are crafty.

Originally posted by spangledbanner
reply to post by redhorse

 

I agree.

The last reason, and in my opinion, probably the largest motivator, is that men are more afraid of a womans sexuality than anything else on this planet. This is how women control men and they know it. That control mitigates, or even completely negates their physical advantage, and can even allow a woman to manipulate a man in spite of all of the social and religious controls and limits on her behavior.

I agree with that especially. They are crafty.

You can always flip flop that scenario.
Men can manipulate women very very easily.
Must I explain?

Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by spangledbanner

 

The broader reasons why women are "kept in their place" is simple biology.

Men need to be able to control a womans womb in order to be able to have a greater chance of knowing that the offspring that come from it, (and that they the men are plugging all of their resources into ensuring the survival of) are their own. Before DNA testing there was no fool proof way to do this, so they did the next best thing... force, which was both hammered down and justified by social pressures and religion.

The other reason, is still biological, technically anyway, and that is "might makes right"; men are bigger and stronger and so have more leverage to enforce that dominance that they are reproductively motivated to enforce anyway.

The last reason, and in my opinion, probably the largest motivator, is that men are more afraid of a womans sexuality than anything else on this planet. This is how women control men and they know it. That control mitigates, or even completely negates their physical advantage, and can even allow a woman to manipulate a man in spite of all of the social and religious controls and limits on her behavior.

Judaism, which is where a lot of our modern mythology and sensibilities about this come from, came into power facing an opposition that included a very powerful, very rich, long established matriarchal religious paradigm. Part of why we have so much vehemence against women in the religions that you mentioned (not that there isn't plenty in others), is because they had to twist the contemporary mythology and make women bad in order to discredit that rival religion.

This is exactly what I was thinking. With the idea of sexual control, some men handle this just fine, others will try dominate in some fashion to keep the control. I liked the point about equalization between the physical and the sexual, and perhaps this is how it should be. Feminism (and I am a woman) has swung the pendelum over too far, much like civil rights has. That being said, I do appreciate the extreme efforts of the women before me, especially those who worked to allow women to vote.

We no longer live in a world were the physical must dominate, so now we have to find a way to make this work mutually well for both sexes. We really need to get better at acknowledging each others strengths, and work together better.

I don't think women destroyed ancient civilization though, with so much suppression it was bound to have problems at some point.

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by spangledbanner

 

The broader reasons why women are "kept in their place" is simple biology.

Men need to be able to control a womans womb in order to be able to have a greater chance of knowing that the offspring that come from it, (and that they the men are plugging all of their resources into ensuring the survival of) are their own. Before DNA testing there was no fool proof way to do this, so they did the next best thing... force, which was both hammered down and justified by social pressures and religion.

The other reason, is still biological, technically anyway, and that is "might makes right"; men are bigger and stronger and so have more leverage to enforce that dominance that they are reproductively motivated to enforce anyway.

The last reason, and in my opinion, probably the largest motivator, is that men are more afraid of a womans sexuality than anything else on this planet. This is how women control men and they know it. That control mitigates, or even completely negates their physical advantage, and can even allow a woman to manipulate a man in spite of all of the social and religious controls and limits on her behavior.

Judaism, which is where a lot of our modern mythology and sensibilities about this come from, came into power facing an opposition that included a very powerful, very rich, long established matriarchal religious paradigm. Part of why we have so much vehemence against women in the religions that you mentioned (not that there isn't plenty in others), is because they had to twist the contemporary mythology and make women bad in order to discredit that rival religion.

This is exactly what I was thinking. With the idea of sexual control, some men handle this just fine, others will try dominate in some fashion to keep the control. I liked the point about equalization between the physical and the sexual, and perhaps this is how it should be. Feminism (and I am a woman) has swung the pendelum over too far, much like civil rights has. That being said, I do appreciate the extreme efforts of the women before me, especially those who worked to allow women to vote.

We no longer live in a world were the physical must dominate, so now we have to find a way to make this work mutually well for both sexes. We really need to get better at acknowledging each others strengths, and work together better.

I don't think women destroyed ancient civilization though, with so much suppression it was bound to have problems at some point.

I'll give you a Physical example.
When I went through US Army Airborne school, if you fell out of the runs, you were kicked out. If you failed the initial PT test you were kicked out. I don't know when exactly they started letting women go to Airborne School, but there were some there when I was.

The girls did pushups from thier knees and didn't have to do as many.
They consistently fell out of runs and still somehow graduated.
I once saw a girl resist to jump right at the planes door (that is an automatic Failure and your to be kicked out) The jumpmaster kicked her in the back right off the plane. She still graduated.

But I seen countless numbers of my battle buddies fail because they couldn't keep up with the runs, or failed the PT tests. They were kicked out. Yet the women were allowed numerous times to slack and fail nearly everything without consequence.

But I understand your point. Military is not civilian life. And in civilian life physical requirements are not a major issue unless of course it is a demanding job

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by spangledbanner

 

The broader reasons why women are "kept in their place" is simple biology.

Men need to be able to control a womans womb in order to be able to have a greater chance of knowing that the offspring that come from it, (and that they the men are plugging all of their resources into ensuring the survival of) are their own. Before DNA testing there was no fool proof way to do this, so they did the next best thing... force, which was both hammered down and justified by social pressures and religion.

The other reason, is still biological, technically anyway, and that is "might makes right"; men are bigger and stronger and so have more leverage to enforce that dominance that they are reproductively motivated to enforce anyway.

The last reason, and in my opinion, probably the largest motivator, is that men are more afraid of a womans sexuality than anything else on this planet. This is how women control men and they know it. That control mitigates, or even completely negates their physical advantage, and can even allow a woman to manipulate a man in spite of all of the social and religious controls and limits on her behavior.

Judaism, which is where a lot of our modern mythology and sensibilities about this come from, came into power facing an opposition that included a very powerful, very rich, long established matriarchal religious paradigm. Part of why we have so much vehemence against women in the religions that you mentioned (not that there isn't plenty in others), is because they had to twist the contemporary mythology and make women bad in order to discredit that rival religion.

This is exactly what I was thinking. With the idea of sexual control, some men handle this just fine, others will try dominate in some fashion to keep the control. I liked the point about equalization between the physical and the sexual, and perhaps this is how it should be. Feminism (and I am a woman) has swung the pendelum over too far, much like civil rights has. That being said, I do appreciate the extreme efforts of the women before me, especially those who worked to allow women to vote.

We no longer live in a world were the physical must dominate, so now we have to find a way to make this work mutually well for both sexes. We really need to get better at acknowledging each others strengths, and work together better.

I don't think women destroyed ancient civilization though, with so much suppression it was bound to have problems at some point.

I'll give you a Physical example.
When I went through US Army Airborne school, if you fell out of the runs, you were kicked out. If you failed the initial PT test you were kicked out. I don't know when exactly they started letting women go to Airborne School, but there were some there when I was.

The girls did pushups from thier knees and didn't have to do as many.
They consistently fell out of runs and still somehow graduated.
I once saw a girl resist to jump right at the planes door (that is an automatic Failure and your to be kicked out) The jumpmaster kicked her in the back right off the plane. She still graduated.

But I seen countless numbers of my battle buddies fail because they couldn't keep up with the runs, or failed the PT tests. They were kicked out. Yet the women were allowed numerous times to slack and fail nearly everything without consequence.

But I understand your point. Military is not civilian life. And in civilian life physical requirements are not a major issue unless of course it is a demanding job

I know what you are talking about, my husband witnessed this firsthand as well, he was in the navy for twenty years. I don't agree with what they did.

But, he also witnessed some damn fine women pilots passed over because of their sex. This goes both ways in and out of the military. Again, there is a balance somewhere.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Rich, middle-aged white men seem to be intent on destroying Western civilisation at the moment. If we have a world left at the end of it, I suggest keeping any remaining rich, middle-aged white men in cages to stop them doing it again.

Can you get anymore racist?

What does being a middle aged white man, have anything to do with it?

You may not agree with the OP, I dot really either, but it also seems like you only read half of the OP......

You bash the OP for what you believe is enabling a sexualistic view, and then YOURSELF move to the use of skin color.........bravo

Seriously?

edit on 14-12-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Merriman Weir


Rich, middle-aged white men seem to be intent on destroying Western civilisation at the moment. If we have a world left at the end of it, I suggest keeping any remaining rich, middle-aged white men in cages to stop them doing it again.

This quote needs to be framed and hung up where everyone can see how liberals really think.

If you happen to be white, male or successful, the "liberal" considers you evil.

Whether it was women or not who destroyed an ancient civilization, it will be liberals who destroy this one.

edit on 14-12-2012 by lucid eyes because: (no reason given)

I'm white and dangerously close to middle-aged myself. It's a fact: the people who run the world and are primarily responsible for the way it's going are white, middle-aged and rich. Or do you think TPTB/governments/elite/Masons/illuminati/Bilderburgs/mega-corporations are run by teenage black girls?

It's laughable. It really is. A whole website set-up because people are angry and afraid of 'the Man' and yet when it's pointed out the Man is also white and rich, it's a bone of contention?

Do you think the world is run by poor men? Do you think the world is run by black men?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I'm white and dangerously close to middle-aged myself. It's a fact: the people who run the world and are primarily responsible for the way it's going are white, middle-aged and rich. Or do you think TPTB/governments/elite/Masons/illuminati/Bilderburgs/mega-corporations are run by teenage black girls?

It's laughable. It really is. A whole website set-up because people are angry and afraid of 'the Man' and yet when it's pointed out the Man is also white and rich, it's a bone of contention?

Do you think the world is run by poor men? Do you think the world is run by black men?

Point of order, would that not be rich, OLD, white dudes? If we're going to go Bilderburger, it would be old Jewish dudes too.

Originally posted by spangledbanner

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
So women are currently supressed because they wrecked an ancient civilization ?

In the next round of civilization do women get to rule as men seem to be doing a fine job of wrecking not only this civilization but the whole world too.

Maybe women wrecked the last one?

Maybe women plan on taking back control on the 21st and they are keeping it quite.

I was just thinking there might be a better reason than the fact that men are jerks. And I find it strange that it seems to be geographic. The 'gaul' types from above italy from germanic, french area and UK all seem to treat woman more as equals. I was thinking something happened in babylon or maybe further east. Maybe there were femanists before and people got sick of them? Like really sick of them. Maybe men are just jerks.

If you go check it out you'll find out that all those come from matriarchal societies that endured for a while... well at least more than they lasted in the south.

reply to post by Merriman Weir



It doesnt make it any less racist just because youre white and you said it......not only that......i could easily tell say something racist, and then claim to be a black man......you can be anything on the internet

Chris Matthews does the same thing constantly..........and hes white...........


You can try to marginalize me, or the fact what you said was racist and had nothing to do with the OP all you want by referring back to ATS and how were suppose to all be enlightened .......

Doesnt make the fact that what you said was racist, and off topic any less true

spangledbanner
Maybe women were treated badly because they were viewed by many as a commodity. I guess they still are in some places and by some people.

I am not sure if women is perceived as commodity, it's rather what redhorse is saying:

redhorse


The broader reasons why women are "kept in their place" is simple biology.

Men need to be able to control a womans womb in order to be able to have a greater chance of knowing that the offspring that come from it, (and that they the men are plugging all of their resources into ensuring the survival of) are their own. Before DNA testing there was no fool proof way to do this, so they did the next best thing... force, which was both hammered down and justified by social pressures and religion.

I presume there is one additional factor - mother's natural biological closeness to the offspring needs to be controled as well.
Think this is what Oedipus myth talks about. Oedypus is one of the most prominent and disturbing myths in Greek's mytology. The clues given in the story plot say a lot about this topic.
In short - the son kills the father and marries his own mother (unknowlingly). Nevertheless he is to take the blame for that horrendous act.
The myth shows what the tribal mentality is the most afraid of. One needs noot only to control womans womb, but be sure that woman will not get supported by her grown up sons.
I believe that myth of Oedypus originates from the times when matriarcy is overtaken by patriarhal tribes - and shows all the reason why the head of the family should take a good care of how the mother is connected to her sons.
In earlier times i suppose, there are myths about father being completely anonymus and irrelevant. (traces of which is preserved in christianity - a hint - holly spirit and Mary Immaculate - notice that father factually does not exist - which gives the great importance to the child and to the mother) Some scholars beleive that when old myths get replaced with the new ones, they still preserve some elements of the past conditions)

reply to post by spangledbanner


I think there is something to what you say. I'm not sure how the customs evolved but they were there for a real long time. I can't say that women having rights is a bad thing though. I will say that women can be very ruthless if they want to. Women have also been protected by these cultures as long as they followed certain rules. Men were killed while women and young children were just reconditioned.

Originally posted by Douriff
The myth shows what the tribal mentality is the most afraid of. One needs noot only to control womans womb, but be sure that woman will not get supported by her grown up sons.I believe that myth of Oedypus originates from the times when matriarcy is overtaken by patriarhal tribes - and shows all the reason why the head of the family should take a good care of how the mother is connected to her sons.

Overall, this is a very interesting line of thought. I will have to put some more thought into that and revisit the Oedipus story as well.

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
chose to suppress women instead of understanding the real point.

Like the child who doesn't understand math and grows up learning to hate it

reply to post by spangledbanner


um.. eve is not a real "person" ..neither is the whore of babylon.
deny ignorance.

eve represents the sexual organs.. adam the mind. .. the fruit "the orgasm"
teh whore of babylon ALSO represents the sexual organs.. and the 7 heads of the beast are the 7 endocrine glands of the human body.

this is all the root wisdom .

but hey l.. that couldn't POSSIBLY be practical, applicable knowledge now would it...
go on thinking they were "real people" with nothing symbolic to glean from... carry on...

Just read the OP (no replies as of yet, but will after this).

I have trouble with your premise.
It seems to follow a poor logical diagram that claims XX has been kept under the heel of XY and kept in culturally reinforced chains during all of history and prehistory. Because XX has been kept in cultural chains of submission, there must be a reason that dates back to pre-history.

There needs be no reason in prehistory at all.
XY likes to dominate, plain and simple, and where there's cultural mechanism for domination of and entitlement over XX to occur, it happens. XY likes to get what it wants, and will even make weapons for going to war to get it, whatever "it" happens to be; gold, land, slaves, death of an enemy, etc.
This kind of bloody minded blood thirsty prone to violence behavior is just outlined within cultural norms. XY has a sword, spear, etc and will get what XY wants through force if necessary pleasethankyou.

You don't see any of this with XX.
There aren't any Empires of role reversal where armies of XX marched across the land in a thirst for domination.
There've certainly been XX rulers with armies of XY to do their bidding, but, that's different.

No, there was no prehistory advanced technological civilization dominated by XX that precipitated a species-wide generational memory condoning, and enforcing the cultural enslavement of XX.

Originally posted by Druscilla
Just read the OP (no replies as of yet, but will after this).

I have trouble with your premise.
It seems to follow a poor logical diagram that claims XX has been kept under the heel of XY and kept in culturally reinforced chains during all of history and prehistory. Because XX has been kept in cultural chains of submission, there must be a reason that dates back to pre-history.

There needs be no reason in prehistory at all.
XY likes to dominate, plain and simple, and where there's cultural mechanism for domination of and entitlement over XX to occur, it happens. XY likes to get what it wants, and will even make weapons for going to war to get it, whatever "it" happens to be; gold, land, slaves, death of an enemy, etc.
This kind of bloody minded blood thirsty prone to violence behavior is just outlined within cultural norms. XY has a sword, spear, etc and will get what XY wants through force if necessary pleasethankyou.

Agreed, generally speaking. However, I don't know if I necessarily agree with your following point..

Originally posted by Druscilla
You don't see any of this with XX.

We (women) are generally not as overtly confrontational or violent, however, we still have the very human, (and very regardless of gender) instinct to control our environment; human beings control their environment in order to survive and ensure the survival of our offspring. As social creatures the best way to do that is to control other people. That is what accumulation of power in all of its various cultural and historical incarnations is all about. That is what dominance is all about. Women are not any different in men in the seeking of power, this driving need for control. We are just as prone dominance, but very different in how it is accomplished.

There are many women who have ruled while standing behind a man; underestimated, unaccounted for, and if she if very clever, veritably unnoticed by the men vying for power around her. I think that far more of history has been affected, and determined by the quiet, seemingly submissive wife/mistress/daughter then the chroniclers of said history will ever acknowledge or even know.

Probably just as well for us (women) really.

We are not as violent, or as physically large, or as strong as men, and we never will be. The laws of brute strength mean that we will never be able to be as overt as men. I sometimes think that the only reason we are not as violent is simply that it is a fruitless effort for us to try to be.

To give an analogy: I am 5'2" and about 110 lbs. I have horses, and my favorite is one that I have had since he is 10 months old. He is 16 hands and nearly 1200 lbs now, and retaining a testicle, so as far as his hormones are concerned he is a stallion. He is smart, opinionated, dominant, and with other horses has proved his capacity for violence. I am not going to win in a physical wrestling match with this animal, so I must dominate him in other ways. I must be clever, and to many male ways of thinking sneaky and manipulative. I must become a student of his behavior, and nip misbehavior well before it has manifested into something dangerous. I must reward him when he does it right. I must be his greatest source of comfort and praise. I must be consistent, and calm, and his safe harbor when he is frightened and unsure, and sometimes I must lead him to believe that what I want is actually his idea. I must not ever physically fight with him. There is no point, I will lose, and undo the hierarchy between us in the process.

Most men don't like this sort of thinking in women. Even my own husband when he sees my interaction with my horse is simultaneously proud of my ability to manage an otherwise unmanageable animal, and uneasy that it means that I certainly manage him as well. It seems coldly calculating, and even sneaky. I suppose that in its own way it is, and certainly there are times when the momentum of this sort of thinking can cause a woman to indeed be the untrustworthy, manipulative, heart-breaking, eater-of-mens-souls that most men secretly fear that we all are. But because of the basic biological fact of They're-Bigger-Than-We-Are this non-confrontational sort of manipulation is the easiest way for us to control our environment, or if you are more poetic, our destiny. The instinct to control it is still there however. It is what it is, and we are what we are. Painting one gender with a black brush is no good, and not true.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage

Men lose IQ points when around attractive women.

Does that mean if a man chases unattractive woman he will gain IQ points?

Attractive is a subjective point of view, so men will always chase "attractive" women but sadly no, I doubt we could gain IQ with chasing undesirable women

reply to post by redhorse


Very good post!
Keep em coming

I wouldn't be surprised:

A Women's influence CANNOT be ignored.
It is something that is built into the very fabric of this existence.

How do you understand such a passionate, emotional female force?
Ahh, it's a good thing the architect of this reality left behind some clues to guide us!!
And the clues are right in front of us.

The vagina: A void.

The penis: A presence.

The presence fills the void.

This can also be applied metaphorically.
Guys. If you are afraid of Women taking over it is because We - as Men - are letting it happen.
Your ideals literally fill the Woman with what you believe in.
Women are natural followers. It's up to us to guide them! Not control them.

Don't be afraid! Women pick up on that from 1000 miles away.
Women want to feel safe. Meaning: If YOU feel safe and secure, so will THEY.
Be confident, be secure and you will be the one who leads the heard.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage

Men lose IQ points when around attractive women.

Does that mean if a man chases unattractive woman he will gain IQ points?

Apparantly so....

Eleanor Roosevelt
Hillary Clinton
Michelle Obama

Calling these women 'plain' would be generous yet their husbands were POTUS.