Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science."

Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science.

Ahem. Please, let me reword...

Liberals or Conservatives who agree that both men and women should dominate the world with intelligence and common sense instead of politics... will be ignored by most.

The social roles they're talking about have been prescribed by western culture, and have little to do with science. For example, most indigenous cultures around the world are much more egalitarian between the sexes. Gender roles are blurred when it comes to mothering and fathering, with the community playing a much larger role in the upbringing of children. But since that's not a part of western-defined history, it's not included in "scientific" historical analysis. If they wanted to look at it from a purely biological standpoint, they'd necessarily have to include cultures that have been minimally impacted by western colonialism and the values spread by it.

As an aside, what's wrong with being anti-science in the first place? It's like committing heresy against religious dogma (which is what "science" as an institution really is anyway). Questioning the scientific method is akin to denying Jesus. The more people who question "science" the better, because this kind of dogmatic rigidity in an institution that yields such immense social power is an incredibly dangerous thing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I'm not out to prove how big my body parts are. I was making a general statement about women's strengths. Sorry if it bruised your ego. If you need to think men are dominant, then you do that.

Wow, just wow. I never said anything about male dominance in my post whatsoever. I never thought you to be one to put words in my mouth Heretic, Jesus tap dancing Christ!

My position is that men and women both serve equally worthy purposes in society and for propagation of the species. Neither is dominant, when we take all characteristic into account.

If you believe both genders are equal then why assign philosophical strengths such as beauty, communication and complex thought solely to women and not to human beings as a whole?

Neither genders have ANY, I say again ANY strengths over the other than of physical ones (i.e. muscle mass, bone density, etc).

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

faux news doesn't speak for anyone but themselves.

Man how I wish that were true! I think they do damage to the right, and while they may not represent the right, their audience is prolly mostly right, right? That is why Faux makes me so frustrated. Sure they have the right to do their thing and we all don't have to watch it, but we sure do hear about it at the water stations, schools and family gatherings. I think they are poison. Yea yea, I've heard all news outlets all do it, but I disagree that the lies and deception are equally distributed, Faux are masters of the craft and reach more people. No, I am not bashing the right, I am bashing Faux and folks that thinks Faux is gospel.
Pardon the digression

I remember watching documentary about gendercide in India. There have been killed millions of baby girls. The documentary ends with dramatic point about 'more valuable gender'. Almost completely male populated village filled with enormous frustration and desperation of inhabitants living their lives without a slightest chance to ever find a woman in their lifetimes. (So many girls were killed in favor of having sons, that it produced unspeakable imbalance) www.nytimes.com...
The conclusion is that even the most casual mentioning gender domination is just plain stupid, having in mind that entire nature works by balancing opposites. Even if we decide for any reason to favor characteristics of one side more than the other, it doesn't mean that our preferences have anything to do with its real values.
Anyway, seems that we are progressing back to dark ages.

Originally posted by muse7
Fox News outdoes itself.

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs asserted women earning more than their husbands was an indication of the dissolution of American society. Fox News political analyst Juan Williams agreed, describing it as a sign of the disintegration of marriage that would have negative consequences for generations to come.

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson went one step further, saying nature itself commanded that women be subservient to men.

“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science,” Erickson explained. “But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”

Link

I know that some people out there still think that women should only stay in the kitchen, cook and clean around the house. I just didn't know Fox News was hiring them as contributors.

Apparently this guy thinks he knows science, but I think he forgot about Bald Eagles where the female is the one that builds and keeps the nest and lays her eggs, goes out and brings food back to her offspring. Or even female Lions thay go out and hunt in packs and bring back food so their kittens can eat.

Societies that choose conservative politics will by definition not move forward.

Women are not men, nor are men women. They are two distinct sexes. Liberalism blurs this by trying to make women "be" men. Like most everything about liberal thought, this just another imaginary utopian fantasy.

Aww never mind

I believe your argument is flawed...sorry.

but I think he forgot about Bald Eagles where the female is the one that builds and keeps the nest and lays her eggs, goes out and brings food back to her offspring. Or even female Lions thay go out and hunt in packs and bring back food so their kittens can eat.

That's because it's always been that way and they can't change it. If they attempted to change they would most likely fail as a species.

But with your argument you say it's ok to change what we have done since our beginnings. I'm not going to take a side on the man/woman thing but your argument doesn't work in this case.

Good thread tho...

Peace

The truth is, men are generally stronger than women. There are exceptions, but this fact applies to the majority. Therefore, it stands to reason that stronger men should be the first choice for companies looking for workers to handle hard, physical labor. Some women are stronger than some men. These women should take precedence over those men.

Honestly, im pro choice. If a woman can keep up and do the job as good as a man, she should be able to. However, theres a good chance that this brave trailblazer woman isnt going to be the type of woman im attracted to. Thats usually the case. Ive never met a pretty coal miner. Just sayin.

Women like the rough look of men. Men get the rough look from living the rough life. Men dont want women to do what men do because they might start to look rough too, and men arent as attracted to that as we are the delicate look.

Lou Dobbs is officialy an asshat.
wtf happened to him? Did he start believing the lies Fox says?

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The truth is, men are generally stronger than women. There are exceptions, but this fact applies to the majority.

That doesn't mean men should "dominate women". We're designed to protect them.

reply to post by muse7


Ya like we are moving forward now? Liberals will never change try to make the other guy look bad to cover up for the scum that runs this country at the moment. That's the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Now I suppose I'm a racist. What a load of crap. Just WOW!

That's alright it's Bush's fault!

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Technically, women are wired to be more submissive by nature, and men are wired to be more dominant. You can thank sexual selection for this, as submissive women fared better than aggressive/dominant women and thus the submissive trait became dominant in women.

Could you repeat that loud enough so my dear wify can hear..

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Ah, finally a very good statement, and one I can not honestly give any intelligent counterpoint to.

i disagree, your points were well spoken.

there can be no discussion without well defined terms, but i understand that what constitutes "better" will vary from person to person, and even conflict sometimes.

you briefly mentioned the sociopolitical state of things, and i'd like to touch on that more. men and women DO bring different things to the table in terms of parenting, and i am in favor of a society that embraces these differences so much that the obligations of a family and community are to their children over silly fictitious things like money.

this may be deemed an idealist's dream, but if it is only considered a dream then it will never come to pass. the facts are that more women are stay at home moms in america, spending more time with their children. this leads to one parent being viewed by the children (typically the dad, since he is at work and not with the kids as much) as more distant and one parent (the mother) being viewed as the problem solver and comforter.

i have heard that young children like to lay on their father's chests more than their mother's because the heartbeat is stronger (the heart has it's own pacemaker that puts off an electromagnetic field well outside the body, and i propose that interactions between these fields are pivotal in bonding and shared emotional connections, probably the reason hugging developed).

so in quick summary, both bring unique, incomparable traits that should be provided to children in equal parts from the mother and father. society has often left this responsibility to the mothers, hence the origin of the opinion that women make better parents. it takes two in equal parts.

The idea of the "dominant" or "better" gender is coming from ancient times, and is funny to see most people that otherwise consider themselves evolved and intelligent are still clinging to these old ideas.

First of all I blame the theistic religion for that. God is obviously a male, (a sexually frustrated one,if you ask me) and in some way or another we all hold in our subconscious that the woman was created to serve the man and keep him company, and it's somehow lower than him. In polytheistic religions we see male and female deities, where each one have its place and function, and the female gender get praised for different qualities than the male one, but nevertheless appreciated. In theistic books all you can learn about female gender is how it must be dominated and punished for some stupid original sin.

Secondly, because men had the physical strength to dominate, it was common practice to abuse their power against women. Women were bought and sold like animals, enslaved, stolen, raped or simply used whenever and in any way strong men felt like. Never mind the children were also treated this way, or the male enemies. Somehow this stigma remained over the centuries attached to women only, so much that even today, unfortunately, we have a vast majority of males who think that because they can overpower a woman, they must be better than her. The sad part is that a lot of women believe it too.

To ask which gender is better is like asking which leg is better than the other; it's stupid to say the least. None of them will get nowhere without the other. Not the legs, and not the humans.
Man and woman are complementary forces, and they have complementary tasks as a biologic specie. The woman's body is built to conceive, carry and gave birth; she have all the tools, physically and mentally to bring a child from a fertilized cell to a mature human being. That's her natural role, her strongest instinct, and it doesn't really matter how good she can be at other things, or if she intentionally chooses to take another role. That's another story. Biologically, the woman is built to be the mother.
The man has the speed and strength necessary to fight; mentally he's programmed to challenge anyone stronger than him, to eliminate any threat around his nest. So obviously, he's built to hunt and protect, to conquer new territories and to keep them, not only for himself but for his family too. Never mind, he can take care of his children if needed to, but this is not his role.

Without a woman and the family that she is nurturing, the male strength and purpose is vain. Without a man, a woman can never fulfill her primal purpose of being a mother.
To those men who think that their "job" in society is more important than women's, just take a look in the mirror. What you see there is what a woman made. Every one of us is born from a woman's womb; still think is not important?

The woman was always put down as being no more significant than a servant, compared to the grandeur of male achievements, so what we see today is probably "the woman strikes back" sequel. Too bad that most women do that at the expense of their children happiness.
My dream, and my target in my couple life is acceptance and understanding that we both male and female need each other badly in order to be fulfilled and happy, and working together is much more satisfactory than competing.

So when that guy said that men is the dominating gender, I say of course it is, the same as we, humans are the dominating specie on earth and destroy every other specie we cannot use for our personal gain. But someone should tell him that "dominating" and "better" are not synonyms yet, from all I know.

I never got the memo explaining why the word "dominant" meant better.

In my experience of the word, and how it relates to the relationships I've had with men, dominance meant that when there was a loud noise in the middle of the night, the guy didn't look at me and ask me to go check. He got whatever weapon he kept by the bed and investigated. And I worshipped him for it. So I guess it would be fair to say that dominance indicates superior muscle power and a ton more testosterone coarsing through the veins which propel the man to place himself between me and danger. *sigh*

Women who overlook this side of dominance remind me of liberals against guns who are thrilled to find out a civilian has a gun during an active shooter situation. Because when seconds count, the po-po is only minutes away.

I think men are dominant in some arenas, and women in others. I just don't get how women get so flustered when a man suggests he's dominant in an arena. If the woman is eventually expected to be dominant, I'm moving. I have no designs on investigating the bump in the night. Mostly because I have about 28% of the muscle power of my boyfriend.

reply to post by Openeye

Originally posted by Openeye
I never thought you to be one to put words in my mouth Heretic,

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I guess I was responding to the fact that my mouth was quite full at the time, with this. :

Originally posted by Openeye
I am simply flabbergasted by the suggestion that one gender is better than the other in any way other than physical ability.

Let me be clear: I think men are generally better at physical strength, problem solving and design. And I think women are generally better at other things, like endurance, manual dexterity, organization. I didn't want to start a male/female thing. I wanted to point out that the original article used ONLY physical strength as the measure. That was my only point.

If you believe both genders are equal then why assign philosophical strengths such as beauty, communication and complex thought solely to women and not to human beings as a whole?

It was a general statement... Just like "Men are stronger than women" is a general statement, because it's not true 100% of the time. Of course, there are men who are stronger in those other traits. I DO believe there are philosophical strengths that can generally be assigned to each gender, however.

Neither genders have ANY, I say again ANY strengths over the other than of physical ones (i.e. muscle mass, bone density, etc).

I completely disagree. Women and men's brains are different and are utilized differently. They think differently and it's not all nurture. That is my position. And I'm fairly flabbergasted that you think only difference between women and men is physical strength. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do apologize for the attitude earlier.

reply to post by muse7

I can see Lou Dobbs spewing that kind of crap ... but Juan Williams agreed?
That surprises me. He's usually more level headed than that.
I guess I can cross Juan Williams off my (ever shrinking) list of talking heads worth a darn.

Well, IMO:
There is no such thing as equality; anywhere. Everyone is different, and can do different things.
However, there are examples of female dominated spieces:
1. The bee- Ruled by a queen.
(Source: www.bristolzoo.org.uk... )
2. Baboons- Female dominant societal structure.
(Source: www.dailygalaxy.com... )
3. Elephant
(Source: science.jrank.org... )

Now, on to people. There is no such thing as equality. I'm really good with computers, but suck at things like sports. Other people may suck at computers, and be amazing in sports. We are all different. Atleast that's my opinion.

Pathetic. Even worse...after reading some of the posts on this thread. It would appear that some of you would have been against women being granted the right to vote because it would be psychologically damaging to men. Lol. This...this is why Obama won the last election.