Have Men Oppressed Women?

[Mr. Pink]

Status quo is status quo because the powers that be are interested in keeping their power.
Not because of any inherent evolutionary advantage.

I'm not claiming an evolutionary advantage, but causality has to play a role somewhere, right?

Let me make a thing clear: As I'm typing this I realize that there have been/are women, many women in fact, who have been more competent than me, and who contributed more to humanity than I have. I "admit" that. So it's not about pride, or proving my superiority over women through association.

That being said, I reiterate: causality has to play a role somewhere right? Your(and @Desirous' and everyone else's) argument is that somewhere back in the mists of time (white)men somehow got a leg up, and things just built up from there. A butterfly effect, as it were. Am I correct? But there has to be a reason, for that initial leg up, am I right? Or is it just pure randomness?

I'm not even interested in 'winning' the debate for the record, I'm just trying to understand why my thinking here seems to be opposed by most of the posters.

 

[Remote]

ehhhh I would think men's physicality, which is what allowed us to gain an advantage over women, is definitely an evolutionary advantage



Nope, it's definitely a factor. As long as we play the game like it doesn't matter then fine, but at it's most primal, it'll always be a factor.

That's probably a genetic advantage more than evolutionary.
But it's besides the point.

Women today aren't oppressed or marginalized because they can't lift as heavy a weight as a man.
They are marginalized because they are perceived as weak and inferior from antiquated thinking and stereotypes.

To be clear, women only gained the right to vote in in the United States in 1919, and it wasn't ratified until 1920.
We aren't even 100 years in on this thing. And women didn't even start entering the workforce consistently until the 1960s and 1970s (WW2 aside).

I mean we still have people who aren't comfortable with a woman flying their airplane.
If someone could explain how she'd be less able to do that than a man, I'd love to hear it.

Look, I'm not here on some feminist crusade.
I once had a woman tell me that for men, women's rights is a useless issue because it does men no obvious benefit to grant them power and influence because we perceive it as diminishing our own.

And the thing is, she was right.
But I (as a simp, I guess), believe that what's right is right. And women get shorted almost every chance they get. I have to admit the truth.

 

[Poitier]

I'm not claiming an evolutionary advantage, but causality has to play a role somewhere, right?

Let me make a thing clear: As I'm typing this I realize that there have been/are women, many women in fact, who have been more competent than me, and who contributed more to humanity than I did.. I "admit" that. So it's not about pride, or proving my superiority over women through association.

That being said, I reiterate: causality has to play a role somewhere right? Your(and @Desirous' and everyone else's) argument is that somewhere back in the mists of time (white)men somehow got a leg up, and things just built up from there. A butterfly effect, as it were. But there has to be a reason, for that initial leg up, am I right? Or is it just pure randomness?

I'm not even interested in 'winning' the debate for the record, I'm just trying to understand why my thinking here seems to be opposed by most of the posters.

Geography is the only reason White men enjoy the position they do now. Nothing inherently better about that.

Women have always had it bad whether it be when we were nomadic tribes killing each other and taking/raping each others women then we came up with society as a means to stop that. From that point on, the patriarchal structure has stood because really, what is a woman going to do if a man puts his physicality against her? We make them the nurturers for the last 10,000 years but that isn't a reflection on the average woman's ability, just our sexism.

 

[Desirous]

I'm not claiming an evolutionary advantage, but causality has to play a role somewhere, right?

Let me make a thing clear: As I'm typing this I realize that there have been/are women, many women in fact, who have been more competent than me, and who contributed more to humanity than I did.. I "admit" that. So it's not about pride, or proving my superiority over women through association.

That being said, I reiterate: causality has to play a role somewhere right? Your(and @Desirous' and everyone else's) argument is that somewhere back in the mists of time (white)men somehow got a leg up, and things just built up from there. A butterfly effect, as it were. But there has to be a reason, for that initial leg up, am I right? Or is it just pure randomness?

I'm not even interested in 'winning' the debate for the record, I'm just trying to understand why my thinking here seems to be opposed by most of the posters.

I understand your point. I don't think it's randomness...I think I addressed at least some of it, in my previous post.

I think roles have the ability to change based on circumstances. For example, the USSR was very powerful at one point...then their power declined. The Germans as well. Now, the US is deemed to be the most powerful country in the world, but this has happened in more recent years. The Greeks were very powerful...now look at what their country is facing...bankruptcy...they are in terrible shape. Can you say that the Greeks are the most intelligent, powerful and "competent" nation/peoples based on the fact that they had a leg up at some point in history?

 

[Remote]

I'm not claiming an evolutionary advantage, but causality has to play a role somewhere, right?

Let me make a thing clear: As I'm typing this I realize that there have been/are women, many women in fact, who have been more competent than me, and who contributed more to humanity than I have. I "admit" that. So it's not about pride, or proving my superiority over women through association.

That being said, I reiterate: causality has to play a role somewhere right? Your(and @Desirous' and everyone else's) argument is that somewhere back in the mists of time (white)men somehow got a leg up, and things just built up from there. A butterfly effect, as it were. Am I correct? But there has to be a reason, for that initial leg up, am I right? Or is it just pure randomness?

I'm not even interested in 'winning' the debate for the record, I'm just trying to understand why my thinking here seems to be opposed by most of the posters.

So you're asking why men got the leg up in the beginning?
Consider the environment. Biologically, men and women are different. Men are just biologically better suited to hunt and fight. We're talking prehistoric times here. It was more or less just basic necessity and physiology that put women at home.

The more sophisticated we become though, the less that matters.

 

[HoloGraphic]

Tbh men really hating on women like they ain't come from 1.

This.

Women buy into the image of what a [black] woman should be and act accordingly, instead of trying to become their own individual, living definition of what a [black] woman should be. They are told who they are instead of telling the world who they are.

Women are the subject of a Man's Painting. We tell her to do positions and live a life that is perverted from Her feminine nature. Then we complain about the quality of women we have, calling them ratchet and what not. Women are the reflection of the direction of Men.

Men have high standards for women and are often very demanding in getting their way. The feminine naturally "goes along for the ride" for the enjoyment that comes with a man's direction or vision for life. Women WANT to please their/a man. But often times, men destroy a woman's self esteem to get with her, put her through some shyt during the relationship, then discard her.

We also have very high standards for women, but at the same time we want it quick and easy. We want to fukk 72 virgins and supermodels, and marry a virtuous wife. But what happens to the 72 virgins and supermodels that we ran through on the way to our Wife?

It's a viscous cycle we put women through.

 

[Poitier]

That's probably a genetic advantage more than evolutionary.
But it's besides the point.

Women today aren't oppressed or marginalized because they can't lift as heavy a weight as a man.
They are marginalized because they are perceived as weak and inferior from antiquated thinking and stereotypes.

To be clear, women only gained the right to vote in in the United States in 1919, and it wasn't ratified until 1920.
We aren't even 100 years in on this thing. And women didn't even start entering the workforce consistently until the 1960s and 1970s (WW2 aside).

I mean we still have people who aren't comfortable with a woman flying their airplane.
If someone could explain how she'd be less able to do that than a man, I'd love to hear it.

Look, I'm not here on some feminist crusade.
I once had a woman tell me that for men, women's rights is a useless issue because it does men no obvious benefit to grant them power and influence because we perceive it as diminishing our own.

And the thing is, she was right.
But I (as a simp, I guess), believe that what's right is right. And women get shorted almost every chance they get. I have to admit the truth.

Those stereotypes and antiquated thinking are rooted in the obvious truth that a woman isn't as physical as a man, Raul.

I'm all for women's rights. I'm not arguing against it. Just clearing up the whole status quo argument. Something becomes the status quo over time and in this case, it was possible because of sheer physical dominance.

 

[Remote]

Those stereotypes and antiquated thinking are rooted in the obvious truth that a woman isn't as physical as a man, Raul.

I'm all for women's rights. I'm not arguing against it. Just clearing up the whole status quo argument. Something becomes the status quo over time and in this case, it was possible because of sheer physical dominance.

Okay. I get your point.

But then I have to ask...here we are, 6 pages in....and what are we talking about?
Not you and I personally...the entire thread....

We're talking about how men came to power thousands of years ago. Is that really the critical point to discuss considering the state of women in society right now?

I mean this is what bothers me in these online debates. We get sidetracked in the most minute things and the discussion ends up one giant 40-page pissing contest.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Thanks for the responses, but I meant leg up in the civilization department. I mean, do you think in pre-historic Mesopotamia women discovered the basics of architecture or farming and men "stole" those things for them, or what?

Or take for instance the first signs of human rights which are credited to Greek men. Why aren't they credited to Greek women?

 

[Poitier]

Okay. I get your point.

But then I have to ask...here we are, 6 pages in....and what are we talking about?
Not you and I personally...the entire thread....

We're talking about how men came to power thousands of years ago. Is that really the critical point to discuss considering the state of women in society right now?

I mean this is what bothers me in these online debates. We get sidetracked in the most minute things and the discussion ends up one giant 40-page pissing contest.

I think I pointed out from the beginning that this would be a circle jerk because OP already knew the answer. Most relatively educated people know the answer. Like I said, we keep making these arbitrary groups based on gender, race, culture, etc when the real discrepancy is wealth disparity and those spoiled rotten White men who can't stand to see themselves with an overwhelming advantage. I guarantee if the White man's power waned over the next ten years that these types of discussions would take a turn for the positive.

 

[Poitier]

Thanks for the responses, but I meant leg up in the civilization department. I mean, do you think in pre-historic Mesopotamia women discovered the basics of architecture or farming and men "stole" those things for them, or what?

Or take for instance the first signs of human rights which are credited to Greek men. Why aren't they credited to Greek women?

Greeks stole that from the Egyptians

I'm sure Women have contributed greatly to farming. I doubt they had the opportunity to learn Architecture.

I think you've been taught a very conservative, Male Eurocentric view of history and thus you don't have all the information to understand why other groups of people LOL @ the distorted narrative White men present to us

 

[Remote]

I think I pointed out from the beginning that this would be a circle jerk because OP already knew the answer. Most relatively educated people know the answer. Like I said, we keep making these arbitrary groups based on gender, race, culture, etc when the real discrepancy is wealth disparity and those spoiled rotten White men who can't stand to see themselves with an overwhelming advantage. I guarantee if the White man's power waned over the next ten years that these types of discussions would take a turn for the positive.

I think you're right.
Income disparity is a major issue that no one talks about. The conservatives use Orwellian language to scare the poor into voting against their interest.

But jeez, I'd really hope this thread doesn't get into a racial, political debate. This is gonna go 1,000 pages.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Greeks stole that from the Egyptians

I'm sure Women have contributed greatly to farming. I doubt they had the opportunity to learn Architecture.

I think you've been taught a very conservative, Male Eurocentric view of history and thus you don't have all the information to understand why other groups of people LOL @ the distorted narrative White men present to us

Don't make this a race thing. Fine, they "stole" it from the Egyptians. Did they steal it from Egyptian men or women?

Some people keep trying to steer this discussion into a white man's opression angle, and I'm the one enganged in a pissing contest.

 

[Gandolpiffini]

dream cum trooo

 

[Desirous]

Thanks for the responses, but I meant leg up in the civilization department. I mean, do you think in pre-historic Mesopotamia women discovered the basics of architecture or farming and men "stole" those things for them, or what?

Or take for instance the first signs of human rights which are credited to Greek men. Why aren't they credited to Greek women?

I think it's difficult to come to the conclusion you're insinuating because we really don't have a "true" record of how things were from the very beginning. Have a read through this article...it gives a very good overview of how roles have changed over time:

http://www.classics.ucsb.edu/mythF09/Bamberger.pdf