women overpowering men in achievement, especially in the younger age groups

[Ethyl]

I disagree. On the contrary, we're very much in survival mode. Look around you, look at all the people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Yes, but it's not necessary for men to use physical strength in order to make ends meet unless the job itself requires it. Generally today, we use our intellect and other skills. We're not running from sabre toothed tigers, spearing animals, and foraging for food. Doesn't take a large, muscular frame to push a shopping cart down the aisle at the store or push papers at a desk job.

Men and women are different physically and psychologically. I think their roles are determined by nature, and they perform their roles differently.

My disagreement is not that we're not different (we are) but how that is translated into every day life with the opposite sex.

 

[whatireallywant]

Yes, but it's not necessary for men to use physical strength in order to make ends meet unless the job itself requires it. Generally today, we use our intellect and other skills. We're not running from sabre toothed tigers, spearing animals, and foraging for food. Doesn't take a large, muscular frame to push a shopping cart down the aisle at the store or push papers at a desk job.

My disagreement is not that we're not different (we are) but how that is translated into every day life with the opposite sex.

Actually I think all individuals are different. A lot of people simply discount the fact that many people can have nontraditional interests/abilities. I have had a few too many instances of people thinking I have no abilities in any of the things I'm interested in. I've seen these attitudes directed at other people as well, so it really isn't just me personally. To say that someone should or shouldn't do something because of their gender is unfair to all of us.

As for achievement, I say that we all, men and women both, should work to achieve our personal goals, whatever those goals may be. I'm not sure even saying that one sex is achieving more than the other is really a fair thing to say, since each person has his or her own individual goals and achievement may not be as easily measured with billions of people each with a different individual set of goals.

 

[Osiris]

I personally think thatthe time of women in leadership is long overdue. Most other nations have had women in power (Maggie Thatcher, Benezier Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc.) Why are we so far behind the pack?

 

[Act2_Begins_Now]

What's in bold above alarms me as well as clues me in on the thought process behind the supposed roles and norms set by society. If men are expected to bring "more" to the table, then that implies women generally have "less" to offer in a relationship.

I was only speaking in the financial sense and also from personal experience. I can appreciate your alarm and understand your argument that it lessens what a woman's has to offer.

 

[snoozan]

May I suggest that the women who are unhappy and unsatisfied in the home are not valued by their mates? Are they not made to feel honored and cherished (yes, I know very 50s)? Were women forced out of the home in search of materialistic gains and because they weren't getting the appreciation from their spouses that they can get by stacking success after success in the business world?

I was not going to comment on this thread at all, but this is such utter horseshit that I have to say something in my own defense.

I am a stay at home mother as well as a professional photographer. My husband is the most supportive, loving, nurturing, appreciative man that I've ever met. He is a tender father, a loving husband, and my number one fan. He's also successful professionally.

Regardless, I wrestle every day with staying at home with my son and sacrificing my career for a short time while I raise him. I love my son to death. However, I hate cleaning house, going to Tupperware parties, and passing inanities with other mothers. I love my work. I love being an artist and I love being a businesswoman. My success in my career is not because I'm somehow not appreciated. My success (in my terms which include both client satisfaction and professional relationships, not others' terms) is an important part of myself and an important way that I define my identity. Being a mom in the home is hard because you don't get to explore your own interests as much as you could before you had children. The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan pretty much started the feminist movement by examining how unfulfilled college-educated women in the home were. No one can be one thing all the time. Being at home with kids puts you in that situation more than a lot of women are comfortable with, including me. I yearn to pursue my professional activities because they make me feel good about myself in a very different way than being a mother does. It's a tough balance to strike, and I have chosen, for my son, to remain in the home more that at work while he's small. It's not easy. I miss being a working artist and producing art regularly. It's hard to be selfless all the time.

My husband makes more money than I do, but if the roles become reversed at some point, I look forward to it. It means I can do for him what he did for me-- let him pursue his dreams, go to school, and start his own business. There is no worry in our relationship about how things like income and drive or whatever may make one of us dominant. We both know who we are and what our relationship is-- a marriage of equals no matter what our jobs and income are.

 

[titan1968]

First, not if you're job is to type on a keyboard 12 hours a day. However, most jobs aren't like that. I used to be an Office Manager and my physical strength was much appreciated-- I often had to do jobs that my female co-workers were unable to do because they lacked the physical strength (not all were petite either). Mercurialbliss, you say that physical strength is not needed. How many female orderlies have you seen working in a hospital? My mother works in one, so I know what I'm talking about. That's only one example, there are many more.

Second, since time IMMORIAL, man has ALWAYS used TOOLS (read intellect and skills) to hunt and gather food. Compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, man lacks the physical strength, the speed and agility to hunt effectively without tools (the only advantage we have is our large brains). You can only last so long on grass, twigs and berries.

We like to believe that we're so much more 'evolved' than our 'primitive' ancestors, but we're not-- we're still basically the same.

Lastly, let's stop punishing ourselves for being different FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! If you have a dream, do what you must to fulfill it, and don't feel pressured by 'special interest' groups and their biased views. The sixties are over; we live in the 21st century.

Yes, but it's not necessary for men to use physical strength in order to make ends meet unless the job itself requires it. Generally today, we use our intellect and other skills. We're not running from sabre toothed tigers, spearing animals, and foraging for food. Doesn't take a large, muscular frame to push a shopping cart down the aisle at the store or push papers at a desk job.

My disagreement is not that we're not different (we are) but how that is translated into every day life with the opposite sex.

 

[snoozan]

titan, my dear, you obviously haven't seen mercurialbliss load a several-ton slab of granite onto a pickup truck, all the while wearing a beautifully printed flowing blouse, smart shoes, and well-tailored capri pants.

i have. it is quite the sight to behold.

 

[Ethyl]

Mercurialbliss, you say that physical strength is not needed. How many female orderlies have you seen working in a hospital? My mother works in one, so I know what I'm talking about. That's only one example, there are many more.

What's in bold is not what I said. Please reread my post.

Yes, but it's not necessary for men to use physical strength in order to make ends meet unless the job itself requires it.

See my statement above and note what's in bold.

Second, since time IMMORIAL, man has ALWAYS used TOOLS (read intellect and skills) to hunt and gather food. Compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, man lacks the physical strength, the speed and agility to hunt effectively without tools (the only advantage we have is our large brains). You can only last so long on grass, twigs and berries.

I never said hunter gatherers weren't intelligent but don't you think our intelligence has evolved beyond making crude tools to hunt animals for food?

 

[Drifterwood]

When I go into a restauarant, I like to order my own food. I wouldn't let the waiter choose and then bitch at them for providing something I didn't like.

 

[titan1968]

It can be inferred from your post.

What's in bold is not what I said. Please reread my post.



See my statement above and note what's in bold.

You were speaking about running from wild animals and spearing them. My point was that man has always used tools for the reasons given in my post (please re-read it).

Yes, we can adapt to new situations, but our need to feed ourselves is a primary one. A society can have all the luxuries in the world, but there can only be chaos if its members are unable to feed themselves adequately (e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, West Bank). Did you know that agriculture is still a labour-intensive activity and that most of the fruit and vegetables you eat are picked by hand? You should think of that next time you're pushing your trolley at the market.

I never said hunter gatherers weren't intelligent but don't you think our intelligence has evolved beyond making crude tools to hunt animals for food?

 

[Principessa]

I personally think that the time of women in leadership is long overdue. Most other nations have had women in power (Maggie Thatcher, Benezier Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc.) Why are we so far behind the pack?

I've wondered about that myself I like to think it's because in comparison our nation is so young. I'd hate to think it was because we are a nation of misogynistic fools.

Actually, to me I guess it DOES matter what other people think. I always want to be liked, and I want approval. That's the reason why I am so shy in real life.

:redface: I'm the same way sometimes but I like to think I am outgrowing it.

What's in bold above alarms me as well as clues me in on the thought process behind the supposed roles and norms set by society. If men are expected to bring "more" to the table, then that implies women generally have "less" to offer in a relationship.

Men and women are different creatures. What we bring to the table should be different, not of greater or lesser value. A "real" man recognises this and doesn't expect their counterpart will have less to give.

Well said and so very true. The good men, the keepers think like this. The problem is they are few and far between.

However, I hate cleaning house, going to Tupperware parties, and passing inanities with other mothers.
njqt466 runs to mailbox to retrieve snoozan's tupperware party invite. Replaces it with a gift certificate for Merry Maids. :smile: I love my work. I love being an artist and I love being a businesswoman. We both know who we are and what our relationship is-- a marriage of equals no matter what our jobs and income are.

If there were more marriages like yours, there would be fewer divorces.

 

[Ethyl]

It can be inferred from your post.

Inferred? Why would you infer anything from a blunt statement?

You were speaking about running from wild animals and spearing them. My point was that man has always used tools for the reasons given in my post (please re-read it).

I understood your point perfectly. My point was that our intelligence - as well as our biology and anatomy - has evolved.

Yes, we can adapt to new situations, but our need to feed ourselves is a primary one. A society can have all the luxuries in the world, but there can only be chaos if its members are unable to feed themselves adequately (e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, West Bank). Did you know that agriculture is still a labour-intensive activity and that most of the fruit and vegetables you eat are picked by hand? You should think of that next time you're pushing your trolley at the market.

i'm not sure why you're being testy or what your point is here. You won't get an argument from me about our primary need to feed ourselves. I'm not talking about luxuries. Once again i've never said physical labour wasn't necessary for some jobs. My point was that our physical bodies have changed a bit since we were hunter-gatherers because we simply don't need to work as hard to eat now.

Let's say that isn't true and, physically speaking, we're exactly the same. Does that mean that women who take care of themselves are doing something unnatural if men are meant to be providers? No, of course not but I hope you see my point.

 

[Drifterwood]

As I understand hunter gatherer societies (and they still exist), women do the vast majority of the work. The men just seem to go off on long bonding hunting trips, that don't represent much in the way of physical danger and usually end up indulging in the local alcoloid.

 

[B_New End]

As I understand hunter gatherer societies (and they still exist), women do the vast majority of the work. The men just seem to go off on long bonding hunting trips, that don't represent much in the way of physical danger and usually end up indulging in the local alcoloid.

This is mere feminist propaganda. One of those things that I think has gone too far, where now it is being shown that men always have been lazy chair, beer swilling, pigs. Labor was divided, yes, but I hardly think it was inequal. Face it, people had to live together, and see eachother everyday. Not every man was a heavy handed, bible thumping, brute. Fuck, man, it's like the entire human history is being re-written to show just how evil the white male has been. I am so sick and tired of this over-dramatized bullshit.

Lets not forget the amount of hunter gatherer societies left are far too little to be statistically significant.

And what is "alcoloid"?

I just hiked 32 miles in 2 days, straight up and down a mountain, and I couldn't help but notice how incredibly painful it was. Imagine 20 miles a day, for a week.

And it may seem like some fun "bonding" trip, but it's not for fun at all, if they come back empty handed, people could die. They can also get caught in a storm, or run out of water, or break their legs, or get lost. Then what? Then they just sacrificed their lives for the good of their tribe, and it's a risk they have to take every year, sometimes many times a year. Fishing is still the most dangerous civilian profession in the world, second only to soldier.

So women may seem to do more "maintenance" work.... but the men do the riskier, "dirtier" jobs, and the ones that require greater labor. Not that hunter gather is the only society type to refer to. In pre-industrial revolution societies, there really was no alternative but for the man to go out and do the hard, brutal labor of tilling the earth.

Men were also the ones who had to fight and die to stave off raiders and barbarians.

 

[Drifterwood]

Here you go New End; Roles and activities

I'm still trying to get my head round bible thumping hunter gatherers - interesting concept.

 

[frizzle]

I personally think thatthe time of women in leadership is long overdue. Most other nations have had women in power (Maggie Thatcher, Benezier Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, etc.) Why are we so far behind the pack?

And Margret Thatcher fucked up our country. Enough said about women in power.

 

[B_Swimming Lad]

I wouldn't dismiss women in power so easily. It will be Hillary Clinton who will fix the enormous mess Bush has made.

 

[Ethyl]

This is mere feminist propaganda. One of those things that I think has gone too far, where now it is being shown that men always have been lazy chair, beer swilling, pigs. Labor was divided, yes, but I hardly think it was inequal. Face it, people had to live together, and see eachother everyday. Not every man was a heavy handed, bible thumping, brute. Fuck, man, it's like the entire human history is being re-written to show just how evil the white male has been. I am so sick and tired of this over-dramatized bullshit.

Who said anything about men being lazy pigs? Or that all men are evil? You won't hear that from me. That's not what this discussion is about. We still have to live together and see each other every day but things have changed and it sounds as though you don't think it's for the better, although I could be wrong.

So women may seem to do more "maintenance" work.... but the men do the riskier, "dirtier" jobs, and the ones that require greater labor.

Like giving birth to a child?

 

[snoozan]

As I understand hunter gatherer societies (and they still exist), women do the vast majority of the work. The men just seem to go off on long bonding hunting trips, that don't represent much in the way of physical danger and usually end up indulging in the local alcoloid.

If you look at the modern Masai, you'll see that this is a good deal true.

So women may seem to do more "maintenance" work.... but the men do the riskier, "dirtier" jobs...Men were also the ones who had to fight and die to stave off raiders and barbarians.

There's an obvious reason for this that has nothing to do with physical strength that you'll hate, but is undeniable. Men are expendable. Since women carry children and human females can only have, at the most, 1 child a year while males can have almost an infinite number by breeding with multiple women, fewer men are needed to have many children. With a drastic reduction in female population, it is much more difficult to perpetuate a decimated society as it is if the male population is reduced. Women hold the key to reproduction, and any society that will send its women to war is risking its future. Mind you, things have changed drastically in the modern world where overpopulation is a problem, but this is the practical reason why "women and children first" came about and also, I'd venture, why women have been protected more in traditional culture. It's not really related to whether women are weaker or less able to function outside of the home, even if that thinking has evolved.

Even so, it's not an easy task for women to work in the fields all day (which is what they did traditionally if the men were out hunting buffalo), care for mutiple children, prepare food, make clothing, fish and do other hunting to "fill in," and protect children, the infirm, livestock, and food stores from predators. This was not less physically demanding in any sense of the word.

Was this less dangerous? Yes and no. It didn't expose an entire group of women to death at the same time which would have been catastrophic from a breeding standpoint. However, women did face death as well, just on a more individual basis.

Still, arguing about cavemen is somewhat immaterial since we don't live this way and haven't for a very long time.

Like giving birth to a child?

Pregnancy and childbirth are still the most precarious times healthwise for women. Ir's also a huge tax on one's energy and mental health. There is no biological equivalent for men. Regardless, there have been countless millions of women like my grandmother who worked in the fields all day, gave birth that night, and went back to work soon after, all the while attending to the needs of a newborn.

 

[Drifterwood]

And Margret Thatcher fucked up our country. Enough said about women in power.

You were born ten years after she came to power.

Many people who do not share her political stance, do recognise that she dragged this country from the brink of bankruptcy - caused completely by men.

Sheesh