Oppression of Women (historical)

[Howell]

The feminist critique of history as far as I can tell is, in brief, that with the agricultural revolution came the centralization of power due to the creation and centralization of surplus goods, which thus began the systematic oppression of women as well as the stratifying creation of class hierarchy.

Women were made second-class citizens and treated like commodities, and this has in some ways worsened in modern capitalist societies.

Historically, men were the ones who made laws, enforced them, ruled, etc.

Women were typically relegated to domains that were relatively powerless. They could influence the household, but were disincentivized to pursue more socially influential careers that were traditionally masculine like politics, business, war, etc., and were conditioned to desire to be desired (no socially recognized agency), and to recognize men as the actively sexual gender.

Domains and behavior were (and continue to be) distinguished by gender roles.

I have qualms about the scope of this conclusion. I think if you take an anthropological look at history, the power system isn't essentially discriminating based on sex, but based on... well, power and ideology. Oppression is not a uniquely female experience (though female oppression does manifest differently than male, for reasons tied primarily to social role and arguably to sexual dimorphism). The vast majority of humans have been systematically oppressed, and everyone is oppressed in some way or another -- society by its nature is oppressive, in that it restricts certain behavior. Sometimes for good reasons, like with traffic lights, other times for unjust reasons, aka, exploitation.

Both men and women experience pressure to conform to gender roles, and societies have usually had more or less severe consequences for deviance (e.g. wife sleeps with another man, she's stoned to death).

Gender roles don't at first glance seem to be entirely oppressive. If you are a person who likes to fight, you can find freedom in identifying with the masculine role as it currently is conceived. But that's missing the point of 'systematic' in 'systematic oppression'. That's just like saying "As long as you do what I want you to do, you're free to do it. Otherwise, I'm going to at the very least shame what you're doing." That's not to say that oppression is entirely to be rejected though. Absolute freedom is not good for traffic, after all.

These roles seem to largely be a way of dividing labor and categorizing behavior for the sake of social order, not for any sort of biological necessity. So naturally, when the mode of production is fundamentally exploitative, then default social relationships will be as well. This conclusion largely undermines the concept of patriarchy and puts the onus on the power structure and ideologies (which could be imbeded with a patriarchical value system -- this about the structure of the dominant religions in the world) tied to capitalism instead. It also leads to some interesting questions of responsibility.

It's a complex issue, and I'm certainly no expert...

How do you guys understand the historical oppression of women? And if you think it's a thing, does this issue have a practical impact on your love life?

-Howell

 

[Drck]

I see it in very simple way. There are certain difficult jobs that needs to be done in order to have functional society. Somebody's got to protect others from predators. Somebody's got to build solid and safe homes. Somebody's got to build tools, weapons, roads for easier access, buildings, stores, bridges, factories... Somebody's got to create rules and laws to make the society functional. Somebody's got to be a sheriff and cop who protects others from criminals physically, mentally or otherwise, or firefighter who climbs up to the 10th floor and brings your 250 pound ass down on his back...

That somebody were and always are MEN. Men do it because they can. Women can't do it, nor should be doing it, they are simply not built for it...

Because of that, any equality is simply insane. There is nothing equal about it, women just can't do it. This is not about not liking women, oppressing them in any way or putting them down to second class, this is simply a reality. If we want to talk about equality, we should talk about these jobs first, we should make it very clear who creates the back bone of society...

Men don't do all of this because they want to oppress women. Men do it FOR women, when you think about it, most men actually don't need all the fancy stuff that we break our backs for... We are already doing it for females...

It is natural for women to want equality, why not. And there is lots of Beta males who feel sorry for them, who want to give them all the equality they desire... And the more equality they give them, the more equality these women want... and the more equality these women get, the more are these men becoming useless men in women's eyes... These are the men who never respect from women, who never get to date decent women, who never get laid with quality women...

It is horrible what is going on in society, it is insane. It is a total pussification of America, men are voluntary giving up their manpower, women are replacing men's classical positions, hard core generals are being replaced with soft women in armed forces, women are becoming leaders of the whole society... And the whole world just laughs and disrespects the current weakness... the biggest and strongest superpower has become a joke to the whole world under the current "leadership"...

Look at the history, at Vikings, once the most feared warriors... What has happen to them? Look at the "equality" in their countries. Women are in power today, these warriors ceased to exist... These countries are a joke today, anybody with little will will run over them with no effort...

 

[Howell]

Drck--

I see it in very simple way. There are certain difficult jobs that needs to be done in order to have functional society. Somebody's got to protect others from predators. Somebody's got to build solid and safe homes. Somebody's got to build tools, weapons, roads for easier access, buildings, stores, bridges, factories... Somebody's got to create rules and laws to make the society functional. Somebody's got to be a sheriff and cop who protects others from criminals physically, mentally or otherwise, or firefighter who climbs up to the 10th floor and brings your 250 pound ass down on his back...

That somebody were and always are MEN. Men do it because they can. Women can't do it, nor should be doing it, they are simply not built for it...

That is a very simple way of seeing things. So in your opinion, women should not partake in certain roles in society because they are less physically capable than men? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge people on the merits of their own character and capabilities than based on their sex though?

Also, is it because women were not hardwired to be builders, protectors, explorers, etc., or is it because the roles that were conferred to women in societies that embarked in such activities were in fact roles which disallowed them from even thinking about being able to do this? I think it's primarily the second option, though their role as baby-makers does seem to decentivize certain activities temporarily.

It's stupid to reject that there aren't physiological differences between the sexes, but it's equally stupid to reject that there aren't expectations and social roles and conditioning conferred to individuals based on their sex, and that these are not based on biological necessity, but on maintaining the unique social order of any given society (i.e., what it meant to be a man in 19th century Ireland vs. 21st century Ireland are DRAMATICALLY different, because the labor that 21st century Irish men partake in is dramatically different. The gender roles people identify with are based on the economic structure of their society, not about optimally fulfilling each individuals' biological needs.).

What you're saying is the equivalent of wondering "Why is it so rare for slaves in human societies to make great discoveries or become emperors?"

Let me ask you a question -- why are there, on average, less Africans who are engaged in the field of quantum mechanics than others? Are they inherently stupid? Why are there, on average, probably more Jews compared to others who occupy places in the media? Why are there, on average, more Asians who own Asian restaurants? ...

That something exists, or has not existed, does not mean it has an essential basis, or was determined on an essential level.

Because of that, any equality is simply insane. There is nothing equal about it, women just can't do it. This is not about not liking women, oppressing them in any way or putting them down to second class, this is simply a reality. If we want to talk about equality, we should talk about these jobs first, we should make it very clear who creates the back bone of society...

This is purely reactionary. You look around and see that things are one way, and thus you rationalize it as necessary. Also, you must now notice just how steeped in metaphysics your position is here.

Men don't do all of this because they want to oppress women. Men do it FOR women, when you think about it, most men actually don't need all the fancy stuff that we break our backs for... We are already doing it for females...

I'd like to see you try to explain that scientifically.

It is natural for women to want equality, why not. And there is lots of Beta males who feel sorry for them, who want to give them all the equality they desire... And the more equality they give them, the more equality these women want... and the more equality these women get, the more are these men becoming useless men in women's eyes... These are the men who never respect from women, who never get to date decent women, who never get laid with quality women...

There's no necessary link between acknowledging the historical nature of gender roles and being an over-apologetic bitch. Identification with being alpha implies insecurity with your own value as a human, as it's identifying with a superior/inferior stereotype model. The essential attributes of alpha-ness are not incompatible with recognition of the way societies construct and maintain gender roles. Don't worry, you can still fuck girls hard and be a dominant flirt.

It is horrible what is going on in society, it is insane. It is a total pussification of America, men are voluntary giving up their manpower, women are replacing men's classical positions, hard core generals are being replaced with soft women in armed forces, women are becoming leaders of the whole society... And the whole world just laughs and disrespects the current weakness... the biggest and strongest superpower has become a joke to the whole world under the current "leadership"...

Fucking women -- ruining society!

Look at the history, at Vikings, once the most feared warriors... What has happen to them? Look at the "equality" in their countries. Women are in power today, these warriors ceased to exist... These countries are a joke today, anybody with little will will run over them with no effort...

This too is a reactionary myth.

Vikings aren't really all that admirable, btw, if you think about it. They were famous for being marauding rapists (not for pleasure or to inseminate as many women as possible, but to subjugate and humiliate populations).

In my opinion, normative gender roles are becoming more similar because of the demands of modern capitalism (needs homogenized, conformist populations of passive consumers who all will buy the same goods and work together mechanically), not because women are in parliament.

If you want to end the "pussification" of your society, more fruitful than trying to rigidify gender roles would be to oppose the social pressure and conditioning to conform to these neutralized roles at all, or even better, instead of opposing the symptom, you oppose the cause: all economic systems based on the commodification of man.

Howell

 

[Drck]

So in your opinion, women should not partake in certain roles in society because they are less physically capable than men? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge people on the merits of their own character and capabilities than based on their sex though
>>>> Good post, but this is a complex topic, and I would have to spent much more time that I'm willing on it to clarify my points.

I'm looking at the whole back bone of society, it is not not about physical abilities of. There are also for example mental and emotional abilities. Man is man and woman is woman. Man can build building to protect himself from predators or enemies, he can build weapons and so on. Woman can't do it. Can man handle her the weapon and stand her up in that building and show her how to aim? Sure, why not. But she would be able to figure that out her own.

Because of the same reasons, male are naturally more dominant, and females more submissive. Why is that? Well, you have to look at our history. Physically and mentally stronger males were simply always in the charge. They had to fight for survival of families, the whole clan. They were also the protectors and aggressors, they had to stand against most dangerous predators. Why didn't women do it? Right, silly question.

This was going for millions of years. Male are still predominantly dominant even today, so the "equality" is here for what, only 20 years? 50 years? You just don't change millions of years in a couple of decades.

Another point, natural attraction. Are you attracted to manly female? Female that has muscles, lifts heavy weights, have deep voice, swears all the time, drinks whiskey and perhaps have hairy chest or mustache? I'm not, to me it is repulsive. I am rather attracted to feminine females, much softer, sillier, and cuter. She has feminine moves, sweeter voice, and is rather submissive. She doesn't have to be stupid, but as long as she is feminine it's all fine.

The same way, I know that females don't like guys who act like pussies. A guy who is soft, submissive, compliant, who has no back bone. Who is indecisive, can't never fight and so on. A guy who talks and talks, but there is never any action. This is BTW a big reason why guys can't get better females. Read about Beta males, and you'll see that everything Beta males do is anti-attractive to females. Look at the whole teaching of PUA/seduction, it is in essence understanding of what is this weak/Beta behavior and learning new, more dominant behavior. In other words, seduction is teaching you how to be a man again by imitating behavior of successful males...

So no, there is no "judging" of who has a dick and who has pussy, who has what character. It is rather understanding about natural roles of males and females...

-------

Let me ask you a question -- why are there, on average, less Africans who are engaged in the field of quantum mechanics than others? Are they inherently stupid?
>>>> Again, very long, much longer that in willing to spend on it at this time. We have to look at history again, we have to understand where are we coming from, we have to understand cultural influences, behavior, even things like religion....

Say there are two people who are born with the same intelligence potential. One is raised in a working family, in secure environment, both parents are prompting him to study hard in school, achieve higher degrees, get a job, pay back to society. They teach him to respect other people, they teach him to get married and have children in a functional family. The other is much less fortunate. He grows up in another culture, he never met his dad. There might be constant war where he lives, he barely finishes eight years of school, there is lots of crime in his surrounding, most of the families have single parent and so forth.

So is one of them more stupid? It is obviously inappropriate question, they both have the same mental abilities, however one grew up in a different environment, perhaps different culture...

So what is the solution? Can you take the second one, give him diploma in quantum mechanics, and put him to the position of the first one if he has much less education? Or, is it fair to take the money from the first one and give it to the second one? You just can't. All of us are THE SAME people, we are humans, and as such we are all equal. However, some of us are more fortunate, we grew up in better environment and families, and inherently we have better positions in life. That is just how it is, there is no such thing as equality. All we can do is to look at OUR OWN PLATE and make sure that we fill it the best way we can, and worry less about plates of others... Why? Because WE are the ones who create the culture, regardless of color, gender, size or mental abilities...

-------


"Men don't do all of this because they want to oppress women. Men do it FOR women, when you think about it, most men actually don't need all the fancy stuff that we break our backs for... We are already doing it for females" >> I'd like to see you try to explain that scientifically.

>>>> Well, I don't have any scientific formula, but just simple common sense. Do you as a man really need to have fifty pieces of jewelry and eighty pairs of shoes? Wearing Nice clothes every day? Shopping in a mall five times a week? Great and esthetically looking food and so forth? Most men don't. Most men are happy with simple stuff. I know bunch of guys who wear the same clothes every day. They hate shopping. They will never go to a fancy restaurant to get lunch just for themselves, they just grab a sandwich. Perhaps they wear one ring. But the same men build malls for females, they buy them expensive jewelry, they drive the to malls and wait for them hours, they take females to expensive restaurants...

So why is that? Are all these men oppressing women? Are they trying to put them to second place? That's insane thinking. These men are doing it because they LOVE women, they break their back FOR them... Just a quick test: what do these women do for men? And how is that working for you?

------

Fucking women -- ruining society!
>>>> No. Unfortunately my point was not understood at all. I've never written anything like that and never meant anything like that. I think women are great and I love women (meaning them being sexy/silly/cute and fun human beings)

------

If you want to end the "pussification" of your society, more fruitful than trying to rigidify gender roles would be to oppose the social pressure and conditioning to conform to these neutralized roles at all, or even better, instead of opposing the symptom, you oppose the cause: all economic systems based on the commodification of man
>>>> Actually, I could care less. The more male-pussies the easier it is to seduce women for me. There is only one reason, females simply don't want man who acts like pussy. Hence the current complain of females that they can't find any man today. Hence the constant question of males "what are women looking for in men". Or "how should I behave so she wants me". Well, they are not looking for anything - all they want is men behaving like men, and not men behaving like wussies... Does it make sense? Women don't really want men to be equal to women. Women want men to behave like men, and as such there is simply no equality...

But I do care about this great country. I love country that is strong and well respected in the entire world, country that nobody fucks with. Country that leads economically, technologically, and perhaps militarily since it is still needed. That's how it used to be, that's how I remember USA. But it is no longer like this. There is less and less respect. There is lots of weakness, and others are acting upon it. And it is because people elected weak pussy-men as leaders...

See, it is just a simple logic. If I have to fight, and unfortunately in today's world we still have to be ready for fight, I want to be amongst the best warriors. I want to have the best weapons, best training, best strategy, best technology, best backup, best navy and army...

Trust me, I don't want the other guys to be equal at all. I want to be 10x better... 50x better... I don't want to be weak just so the other side can feel better about themselves... Is the world much better place in peace, without weapons? Definitely, 100%. But is peace possible today without strong military? Or simpler, can you be safe on streets in your town if they fire every cop? I don't believe so...

Do I want females to lead army in this dangerous world, and do I want pussy-man who is afraid of guns to be in charge of the whole military? Do I want 150 pound female to protect me from criminals who ran out of prison? No sir, I'm not insane either... It's not that I don't like women or try to oppress them, but it is rather because I think that males are much better at this...

The same way, I don't want to be equal to third world countries either. I feel sorry for them but THEY have to build themselves up, it is their plate and their responsibility. We can help, but Nobody can do it for them... If that makes sense...

 

[POPEYE]

Howell..... thank you for starting a very refined subject. Some men actually do see their woman as a commodity and force their sexually frustrated desires onto women - who apparently to some men know what women want, and that is sex whenever & wherever a man wants to fulfill his sexual addiction. These men - in my opinion, are sick and undoubtedly have mental issues they have yet to resolve. Keep up the great discussion.

 

[Howell]

Howell..... thank you for starting a very refined subject. Some men actually do see their woman as a commodity and force their sexually frustrated desires onto women - who apparently to some men know what women want, and that is sex whenever & wherever a man wants to fulfill his sexual addiction. These men - in my opinion, are sick and undoubtedly have mental issues they have yet to resolve. Keep up the great discussion.

Hi Popeye,

I'm glad you find it interesting.

To comment on your input:

You seem to think commodification is an isolated personality flaw; something that is a mental aberration that society as a whole does not condone.

On the contrary though, "commodification has become intensified and institutionalized in new and far-reaching ways, carrying meanings that reconfigure our understanding of the world and our place within it. The very character of life seems increasingly consumeristic and commercial."

That's from the intro to a journal called The Hedgehog Review which you can read here: http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/hedgeho ... Summer.php I recommend at least reading the introduction.

We are living in a society where things like personal identity, agency, community, and interpersonal relationships are increasingly commodified. To make this a bit clearer (though somewhat clumsier), think of it as the normalization of prostitution (not just sex, but of all forms of labor). And when something becomes a social norm, it requires your own conscious effort to not partake in it -- otherwise you're likely to be swept along in either self-righteous passivity or in resignation.

As Michael J. Sandel points out in his essay which you can find in the link above, we may want to take a critical look at the moral limits of markets.

And more particularly for the topic at hand, the dehumanizing effects of commodification in the social realm (commodification, not commoditization. There's a big difference).

So when you read me using the word 'commodity', or the word 'commodification', know that I'm using them in a deeper sense than the image of men buying wives from third world countries or guys treating girls as pleasure machines, or even marketers using the female form as a symbol of sex to sell laundry detergent.

-Howell

 

[Chase]

Here's most succinct explanation I've seen of the phenomenon that gets classified as "oppression" in Western feminist thought:

Is There Anything Good About Men?

Let me offer a different explanation. It’s not that the men pushed the women down. Rather, it’s just that the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress.

Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist.

Why? It has nothing to do with men having better abilities or talents or anything like that. It comes mainly from the different kinds of social relationships. The women’s sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis of the kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that women favor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally to health and survival. Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.

Note that all those things I listed — literature, art, science, etc — are optional. Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimate care and nurturance, children won’t survive, and the group will die out. Women contributed the necessities of life. Men’s contributions were more optional, luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge, and power. Culture did this — but mainly in the men’s sphere.

Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.

Worth a read if you haven't read it yet. It's fantastic stuff.

Chase

 

[Lawliet]

That makes sense. After all, women would stay at home before and men were out there fighting for power status and wealth.
The concepts were created in men's world first... good one

EDIT: Since we are talking about feminism, bros take a look at this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ap2xnMcvpw
What are your thoughts?

Lawliet

 

[Howell]

Here's most succinct explanation I've seen of the phenomenon that gets classified as "oppression" in Western feminist thought:

Is There Anything Good About Men?

Let me offer a different explanation. It’s not that the men pushed the women down. Rather, it’s just that the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress.

Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist.

Why? It has nothing to do with men having better abilities or talents or anything like that. It comes mainly from the different kinds of social relationships. The women’s sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis of the kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that women favor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally to health and survival. Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.

Note that all those things I listed — literature, art, science, etc — are optional. Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimate care and nurturance, children won’t survive, and the group will die out. Women contributed the necessities of life. Men’s contributions were more optional, luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge, and power. Culture did this — but mainly in the men’s sphere.

Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.

Worth a read if you haven't read it yet. It's fantastic stuff.

Chase

Baumeister basically is justifying psychological characteristics of all women on an evolutionary level, but offers no evidence to support this (because there is none). He is saying that because of the nature of female biology, women have just not been very interested in exploring, science, or creating literature. They have "more important things to do" like raising kids and bonding with one another.

It's not a matter of how social roles are constructed, it's a matter of personal preference. Men simply favored one way and women favored the other. Well isn't that harmonious...

What he is saying may be a nice myth, but it totally breaks down with minimal analysis.

He is assuming all of human history, that is, all the events which proceeded modern day society as being ontologically the same as far as how definitive they were in defining what it means to be a human. While it is unforgivable for people to look at neolithic, pre-civilized tribal societies and call those "hunter-gatherer societies", it is even more stupid to make false, misleading ontological propositions about women "not sailing on ships to unknown regions" because this refers to the historic period, or civilization. And again, the reason for this is rather simple - a rudimentary evaluation of how those societies function, the several RITUALS, customs and socially-coordinated behaviors that were ordained were present, allows one to understand PRECISELY why it was not "women who built ships to sail off to explore unknown regions". This is owed purely not even to simple burdensome physiological inevitabilities - by the time humans were sailing ships to unknown regions the sexual slavery of women had already long occurred. That this was "rare" says nothing about, again, SOME KIND OF ESSENTIAL, INNATE PHYSIOLOGICAL REASON FOR ITS ABSENCE. Baumeister keeps assuming that BECAUSE a phenomena was present or not present historically, it is - by merit of human existence - physiologically an inevitability.

Is he saying that it is impossible for women to be explorers, scientists, etc.? No? Okay, so why is it unlikely?

As I said to Drck,

is it because women are not hardwired to be explorers, or is it because the roles that were conferred to women in societies that embarked on such explorations were in fact roles which disallowed them from even thinking about being able to do this? It's like saying "Why is it so rare for slaves in human societies to make great discoveries or become emperors?"

Why are there, on average, less Africans who are engaged in the field of quantum mechanics than others? Are they inherently stupid? Why are there, on average, probably more Jews who compared to others occupy places in media? Why are there, on average, more Asians who own Asian restaurants? That something exists, or has not existed, does not mean it has an essential basis, or was determined on an essential level.

How can a self-proclaimed scientists say this and get away with it? The question itself is framed in such a way that it is a pure abstraction. Why is it so rare? Why WOULDN'T it be rare, given non-biological historical considerations?

This isn't a matter of whether you treat women well or not. I know that most of you do. However, it's willful ignorance to assume that because men and women in certain times had different social strategies, that these were entirely by their own volition, were "natural", and were ontologically universal characteristics of men and women in history and pre-history.

I think there are a plenty of manifestations of feminism that are pretty inane (e.g. identity politics), however, I think it's equally inane to dismiss the possibility of systematic oppression of women (and men, in their own way) on the grounds of evolutionary biology -- as there is no rational reason to conclude that human behavior is determined for biological advantage, let alone to conclude that sexual roles are based on biological necessity. The very existence of contraceptives is enough to dismiss the universality of such claims.

Howell

 

[Drck]

"However, it's willful ignorance to assume that because men and women in certain times had different social strategies"

Just a little note: If we believe that evolution is true, which is currently supported by scientific discoveries, we should look at the whole nervous system, respectively brain. There are couple of important points here:

* Anatomically modern humans are here (on Earth) only some 160-180 thousands of years. Neocortex (part of brain responsible for higher functioning such as speech or math) is relatively new feature. Speech probably started to evolved only some 60 thousands years ago, and it took probably another tens of thousands of years before we had here some fluent verbal communication...

* Predecessors of modern humans have been here only some 1-6 millions years, depending on definition of 'predecessor'. These predecessors didn't have neocortex, which basically means there was no higher functioning. Our predecessors were just primitive animals. However, at the same time they used to live in small(er) groups

* Even these primitive predecessors descended from another species.


There is no need to go down the line of evolution, but the simple point is that our primitive brain has been around and evolving for many millions of years, and during those years humans used to live in groups...

Which leads us to default behavior of males and females. As I mentioned couple of times before, males were simply providers, protectors and hunters, facing dangerous predators and death on daily basis, while females gathered together at 'safe homes', socializing with others and raising youngsters...

That gives us rise to our current issue with gender roles. Whatever you guys are describing, including sophisticated psychological words, don't forget that our primitive brain has been around for tens of millions of years. Our neocortex only for couple of thousands of years. That shouldn't be ignored, our modern thinking simply hasn't catch up with with millions of years of evolution of our predecessors. Our male-female behavior is deeply encoded in our primitive brains, regardless what neocortex thinks about is...

The same with robust male anatomy or female's softness. The same with speech abilities, e.g. while average male talks about 7 thousands of words per day, average female easily talks 3x more...

Therefore, there is no "equality" per se, we males have different style of thinking than females, we are anatomically built for strength, we are choosing different strategies to pursue our goals, we have different strategies to fight wars and so forth. Females are softer, gentler, or if you want cuter and sillier...

We can apply this knowledge everywhere we go, including in seduction: The more we behave as males, meaning true men, the more attracted we are to most females. In the same coin, the more female behaves like a female, the more we are attracted to her. Most guys have no idea what females want. They can never solve the problem. But the solution is simple and easy: Females are looking for males, because females are attracted to males... Duh...

And this also brings us to current problems in society. There are no more true males, the true male that each female is secretly seeking is gone. True, we have anatomically similar bodies like our predecessors, but the male behavior became more feminant, especially in the past couple of decades. At the same time, female's behavior became more muscular, so the attraction naturally decreases... That is why we have so many females ignoring males, flaking, making fun, disrespecting... It is simply because they are not as attracted to males anymore, they know they can do anything they want without any consequences... They don't treat males as males, they treat males as immature boys...

And you guys think that the solution is in more "equality"...? Equality where? And why at first place? That is simply insanity...

 

[Chase]

Howell-

You seem to have some very noble ideas based largely on idealism and speculation.

Your argument against Baumeister is rooted in emotion. His argument is “Here’s all the evidence I’ve seen, and the conclusions that’s led me to.”

Yours is “How DARE he say this – he needs yet more evidence!”

That works well in collegiate circles, where you shut down your opponent with vehemence and moral force rather than well-reasoned and carefully-worded arguments. In these parts though, if you want to win the battle of ideas, you need superior evidence and reasoning, and a setting-aside of moral force.

Chase

 

[Howell]

Howell-

You seem to have some very noble ideas based largely on idealism and speculation.

Your argument against Baumeister is rooted in emotion. His argument is “Here’s all the evidence I’ve seen, and the conclusions that’s led me to.”

Yours is “How DARE he say this – he needs yet more evidence!”

That works well in collegiate circles, where you shut down your opponent with vehemence and moral force rather than well-reasoned and carefully-worded arguments. In these parts though, if you want to win the battle of ideas, you need superior evidence and reasoning, and a setting-aside of moral force.

Chase

I respectfully disagree, Chase.

My argument isn't essentially that women WERE or ARE oppressed, but that Baumeister's conclusions are not supported by the evidence he provides, and therefore alternative explanations are needed.

He concludes that the relationship between men and women as they appear now are the manifestations of inevitable aspects of humans, and that these aspects are historically unchanging and are what compose our essential humanity. What possible scientific evidence could one have for this though? I can't think of any. Can you? It seems to be pure metaphysics to me.

One can reasonably argue that biology plays a role, but there is no reason to conclude that human behavior is ENTIRELY DETERMINED by it. His evidence shows correlation, but his conclusions imply causation based on the assumption that "cognitive mechanisms" account for objective reality (but, "What's It Like to Be A Bat? http://mypages.iit.edu/~schmaus/Philoso ... /Nagel.htm). This was the first red flag I saw here.

Humans aren't just acted upon by external forces, we also shape our own world. He seems to be arguing that this is wrong, that there are eternal principles that are biologically necessary and even more, that fundamentally determine human behavior. But what evidence does he have for that assumption?

It's not even a matter of proving it or disproving it though. It's sufficient just to show that there are other explanations that are equally justifiable and that adaptive mechanisms are insufficient concepts (they are instruments of cognitive analysis, not objectively real phenomena) for describing the totality of human behavior. As nice as it would be, we have no rational reason to reduce social dynamics to solely evolutionary biology or to dismiss all other (there are many) ways of understanding human behavior, let alone draw conclusions about why society is how it is and why people play the roles they do. My position here is that of profound suspicion and uncertainty. I'm testing out alternative explanations, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that any one explanation is absolute objective truth. I see no evidence to support that, and I also have doubts that such a thing is even possible.

I think his attempt at finding universal principles is a noble goal, but it's simply too idealistic and speculative to be accepted as anything more than pseudoscience.

It's primarily when you investigate the implicit assumptions he's making, which yes, is an act that can seem a little overly academic if you're not used to looking at things like this, that you discover Baumeister's basic, metaphysical assumptions about the world we live in.

His metaphysics seem based in the Judeo-Christian myth of the world being "made". During the enlightenment we mostly got rid of the idea of a god, but we kept around the idea of universal 'laws' of nature. But that's just one myth among many. These basic assumptions have no more basis in objective truth than the Christian story of creation (as much as it pains me to say so). Therefore, alternative stories must not be dismissed wholesale as being a temper-tantrum, solely emotional, unscientific, overly-academic, or as wholly unjustifiable perspectives. I want to be more open-minded than that, even if I'm encountering ideas that challenge my former notions about the shape of the world. Things are rarely as simple as they seem.

Honestly, I think it is Baumeister here who is being overly idealistic. He thinks his field of inquiry can explain the social sphere through evolutionary psychology and in terms of eternal principles. If that's not idealistic, I don't know what is.

Tl;dr: Baumeister's conclusions do not follow from the evidence he provides. His conclusions are based on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the world he thinks he lives in, not on any objective reality (though, he most likely thinks he's dealing with objective reality). To quote Soren Kierkegaard: "Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."

-Howell

 

[Chase]

Howell-

Ah, forgive me then.

You seem to be at odds with Baumeister's evolutionary psychology, essentially. Which, for sure, can be a really slippery slope - it's easy to draw one conclusion, then another, and suddenly you've got an entire belief system based on conclusions drawn from each other that are only tied to circumstantial actual evidence.

I'll offer my own thoughts, in that case. Your original question is, "How do you understand the historical oppression of women?"

My understanding of the various rights and liberties of individuals within a society is that these are tied to the power of the civilization relative to those of its neighbors.

e.g., if you read the histories of various nations, you'll notice pretty much across the board that as societies become wealthier and more powerful, the poor get greater rights, women get greater rights, slavery vanishes or more slaves become freedmen, and the society overall becomes increasingly compassionate. In this case, it seems to be that a powerful society gets enough breathing space that the more powerful feel less need to keep everyone in line in the interest of survival, allowing the less powerful to gradually push back against the control of the more powerful and funnel more freedom and power to themselves. Safe societies become more egalitarian.

Conversely, as societies descend into poverty and chaos, they become stricter and more regimented in order to survive against more powerful neighbors. The crumbling Middle East is a good example; 50 years ago it was basically Western, with women dressing the same as their Western peers and more or less the same rights and freedoms, but as its societies have crumbled, they've become 'oppressive'. A historical example might be Europe during the Dark Ages; Europe went from Roman prosperity, when women were free and powerful, to feudalism, when not only were most women quite oppressed, but most men were too. The Dark Ages might readily be defined as a bunch of European nations scrambling to protect themselves from each other and from outside conquest (the Arabs and Berbers, the Mongols). As Europe climbed out of the Dark Ages, this society-wide oppression lifted as well.

Rights and freedom might be seen as a bit of a historical see-saw then; as a society's prospects wax, greater amounts of its populace see more and greater rights; yet as its prospects wane, those rights either gradually erode, or are largely abolished following a revolution or outside conquest.

Chase

 

[Thedoctor]

There's the odd thread, such as this one, that pops up on here every now and then. They are incredibly insightful and have me rethinking the way I view the world.

Just a suggestion, but I think a "Philosophy" section would be a good idea.

-John

 

[Lawliet]

There's the odd thread, such as this one, that pops up on here every now and then. They are incredibly insightful and have me rethinking the way I view the world.

Just a suggestion, but I think a "Philosophy" section would be a good idea.

-John

In a way, it's seduction related. A philosophy might array to all sorts of life living notions which distracts the focus on GC.
But threads like these are incredibly insightful indeed

Lawliet

 

[Rage]

Here's most succinct explanation I've seen of the phenomenon that gets classified as "oppression" in Western feminist thought:

Is There Anything Good About Men?

Let me offer a different explanation. It’s not that the men pushed the women down. Rather, it’s just that the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress.

Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist.

Why? It has nothing to do with men having better abilities or talents or anything like that. It comes mainly from the different kinds of social relationships. The women’s sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis of the kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that women favor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally to health and survival. Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.

Note that all those things I listed — literature, art, science, etc — are optional. Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimate care and nurturance, children won’t survive, and the group will die out. Women contributed the necessities of life. Men’s contributions were more optional, luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge, and power. Culture did this — but mainly in the men’s sphere.

Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.

Worth a read if you haven't read it yet. It's fantastic stuff.

Chase

Thoroughly enjoyed this Chase; thought the name sounded familiar, I've been reading Baumeister's book on willpower! http://www.amazon.com/Willpower-Redisco ... 0143122231

Cheers,

Rage

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Howell, a few comments. And imma go real deep down the rabbit hole with this one, because well, you asked for it when you said this

It's primarily when you investigate the implicit assumptions he's making, which yes, is an act that can seem a little overly academic if you're not used to looking at things like this, that you discover Baumeister's basic, metaphysical assumptions about the world we live in.

We're gonna see how academic you can get, my friend

My argument isn't essentially that women WERE or ARE oppressed, but that Baumeister's conclusions are not supported by the evidence he provides, and therefore alternative explanations are needed.

He concludes that the relationship between men and women as they appear now are the manifestations of inevitable aspects of humans, and that these aspects are historically unchanging and are what compose our essential humanity. What possible scientific evidence could one have for this though? I can't think of any. Can you? It seems to be pure metaphysics to me.

You're making some unchecked epistemic assumptions here. I'm really curious how you'd respond to them. I'm gonna cover a few and when I've nailed one that you hold to, let me know what you think of the question that follows.

- If you're implying that scientific evidence, and therefore the scientific method, is the groundwork of Truth, can you demonstrate why this is so?

- What's your definition of metaphysics? No this is not a trick question and please don't quote anybody/anything for this one; I'm curious how you would define it.

- If you're implying that metaphysics is not the groundwork of Truth, can you demonstrate why this is necessarily so?

One can reasonably argue that biology plays a role, but there is no reason to conclude that human behavior is ENTIRELY DETERMINED by it. His evidence shows correlation, but his conclusions imply causation based on the assumption that "cognitive mechanisms" account for objective reality (but, "What's It Like to Be A Bat? http://mypages.iit.edu/~schmaus/Philoso ... /Nagel.htm). This was the first red flag I saw here.

If you're operating from the perspective that scientific inquiry is a groundwork of truth, then you should know that there is no such thing as causation in science. It's impossible. There is only correlation. Even the most rigorous science of all, physics, only operates with correlation and assumes causation for practical purposes (e.g., when discovering the Higgs Boson, they confirmed findings that were consistent with the theory of the Higgs Boson with a Sigma 5, or 99.977% likelihood). Given that there is no causation in even the most rigorous scientific field, you can't invoke the "correlation isn't causation" argument for sociology, a far less rigorous field, without literally destroying all of science.

So you have a choice: drop the "correlation isn't causation" argument or refute all of science. Which is it?

Next up: why is hard biological determinism incorrect? Your entire argument hinges from the acceptance that "there is no reason to conclude [hard biological determinism]." Have you demonstrated biological determinism is necessarily untrue?

By the way, if you accept the premise that scientific inquiry is the groundwork of Truth, you must also accept that its force is unwavering, therefore making scientific conclusions absolute.

Of course, there's an inherent problem with that if you look closely, and exposing this problem necessarily demonstrates the impossibility of scientific inquiry being the groundwork of Truth. I could demonstrate this for you, if you'd like (hint: it involves Hume's Problem of Induction, but I could also use Godel's Incompleteness Theorems if you wanna get really freaky).

Humans aren't just acted upon by external forces, we also shape our own world. He seems to be arguing that this is wrong, that there are eternal principles that are biologically necessary and even more, that fundamentally determine human behavior. But what evidence does he have for that assumption?

Hmmm, you misunderstand how eternal principles work. Eternal principles must be empirically unverifiable by definition. There can be no ireffutable evidence for them. You can point at them with words, patterns, and forms, but they themselves must, by definition, be beyond conceptual, affectual, or emotive reach.

It's not even a matter of proving it or disproving it though. It's sufficient just to show that there are other explanations that are equally justifiable and that adaptive mechanisms are insufficient concepts (they are instruments of cognitive analysis, not objectively real phenomena) for describing the totality of human behavior. As nice as it would be, we have no rational reason to reduce social dynamics to solely evolutionary biology or to dismiss all other (there are many) ways of understanding human behavior, let alone draw conclusions about why society is how it is and why people play the roles they do. My position here is that of profound suspicion and uncertainty. I'm testing out alternative explanations, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that any one explanation is absolute objective truth. I see no evidence to support that, and I also have doubts that such a thing is even possible.

Of course it's not about proving or disproving. Proving and disproving are within the realm of mathematics, logic, and perhaps some theology/metaphysics. Nowhere else can you do proofs. It's simply not in the structure of anything more concrete than mathematics. If science had proofs, it wouldn't be science, because science relies on induction, whereas mathematics, logic, theology and metaphysics are purely deductive fields. Deduction inherently allows for conclusions to be guaranteed by their premises (i.e., proofs), but induction only allows for premises to suggest or give strength to conclusions (and no, mathematical induction is not actually induction; it is a rigorous form of deduction).

I think his attempt at finding universal principles is a noble goal, but it's simply too idealistic and speculative to be accepted as anything more than pseudoscience.

Who said finding universal principles has anything to do with science? Science can't find universal principles. Not-science isn't pseudo-science, it's just not-science (and I think by now we're pretty clear that you're a "science is truth" guy, right?)

The scientific method and the foundations of the philosophy of science simply aren't equipped to find universal principles, because they rely on induction and, well, universal principles, again by definition, cannot be demonstrated inductively. And funnily enough, as Kant demonstrates in his Critique of Pure Reason, logic can't penetrate universal principles either. Pretty funny shit actually (and he further buries induction's power, and therefore science's power, with his Critique of Practical Reason)

His metaphysics seem based in the Judeo-Christian myth of the world being "made". During the enlightenment we mostly got rid of the idea of a god, but we kept around the idea of universal 'laws' of nature. But that's just one myth among many. These basic assumptions have no more basis in objective truth than the Christian story of creation (as much as it pains me to say so). Therefore, alternative stories must not be dismissed wholesale as being a temper-tantrum, solely emotional, unscientific, overly-academic, or as wholly unjustifiable perspectives. I want to be more open-minded than that, even if I'm encountering ideas that challenge my former notions about the shape of the world. Things are rarely as simple as they seem.

Honestly, I think it is Baumeister here who is being overly idealistic. He thinks his field of inquiry can explain the social sphere through evolutionary psychology and in terms of eternal principles. If that's not idealistic, I don't know what is.

Tl;dr: Baumeister's conclusions do not follow from the evidence he provides. His conclusions are based on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the world he thinks he lives in, not on any objective reality (though, he most likely thinks he's dealing with objective reality). To quote Soren Kierkegaard: "Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."

-Howell

I'm so excited to see your responses. This is going to be fun.

Hector

 

[Howell]

Sorry Hector, I’m done with this thread. If you start a new one about something interesting (perhaps on a similar topic) I’d be willing to comment and engage you there though.

However, for this one, you are so far off the mark I find it difficult to respond in any other way besides dismissiveness.

• 1. I criticized specifically evolutionary biology in this thread, not sociology.
  2. I am not a moral rationalist, as you seem to think.
  3. I’m not interested in pointless abstractions, devoid of context.
  4. Of course I was making “unchecked” epistemic assertions, as I was writing at the depth I deemed the thread worthwhile to elaborate my ideas at, which of course was hardly the level of a philosophical treatise.
  5. I’m not implying that metaphysics is the groundwork of truth. Your eagerness to reduce my arguments to abstract trivialities is misguided. Instead of trying to dismiss what I’ve said, wouldn’t it be more productive to ask me to elaborate, and then decide for yourself if I’m full of shit or not then?
  6. If you want to understand my word choice, if you scroll up you might notice that I was tongue in cheek using previous commenters' own words back at them. So your attack is taking out of context the language I was using; a language I was using to parallel and draw attention to certain conflations made by earlier commenters. And this includes the very quote of mine you give as the reason of your instigation, btw.
  7. You have no recognizable apprehension of the arguments being made in this thread, which is apparent in your rampant misidentification of even the domain I in passing criticized, let alone my philosophical background.

Now, if you wanted me to elaborate on my critique of Baumeister, this I could understand. But the way you’re approaching this all right now is so incredibly irrelevant to anything that I can only conclude that you’re engaging me simply because you want to have a dick waving contest and nothing more. I think I’ll pass, thanks.

Here: I’ll throw you a bone. Feel free to “tear me a new one” with your obviously superior intellect.

- If you're implying that scientific evidence, and therefore the scientific method, is the groundwork of Truth, can you demonstrate why this is so?

This is not what I’m implying. The truth of an endeavor is what will satisfy its goals or purposes; an endeavor is true when its goals or purposes are satisfied. The truth of science is knowledge, or conclusively rational belief; the truth of ethics is morality or right action; the truth of art is beauty; the truth of religion is God; and the truth of philosophy is the truth about truth.


And maybe to set you on the right course for actually meaningful criticism, here’s a clue as to what my argument in this thread has been about:

• 1. Man as a biological entity is merely a vehicle for the reproduction of the definite social dimension, a dimension that dictates and reproduces the biological (i.e., men decide how they survive, live, unlike animals). Unlike the other commenters in this thread, I do not assume that the rationality of man's self-interest is a given, that "man's survival qua man" is a predicament which does not need to be critically assessed, which is somehow a given, and so on. What constitutes the standards of rationality for man's self interest is a social controversy -- standards that are set in place by the social order that which man constitutes a part of.
  2. There is not a single behavior in modern day society which is justifiable because of what pre-historic savannah humans were doing. NONE.
  3. Humans are not like mice whose actions are PRE determined by a set of predictable physiological reflexes. Humans, rather, who can analyze mice in the first place, are not animals at all insofar as what makes us actually human is concerned -- social labor.

Enjoy.

Howell

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Lol, dude. Relax. My arguments were hella real, but my tone was obviously fucking with you. You've been on this forum long enough to know - if I'm being mean, it's really, really obvious. I'm the most honest person in the world. If I'm having fun, I'm going to throw in winkey faces. If I'm curious, I'll ask questions. Shit, I winked at you enough times that you should consider whether or not I'm flirting with you. I might be. No one else has gone this deep in a long time and I got interested. I got philosophical chubs.

Because, as I pointed out, you said this

"It's primarily when you investigate the implicit assumptions he's making, which yes, is an act that can seem a little overly academic if you're not used to looking at things like this, that you discover Baumeister's basic, metaphysical assumptions about the world we live in."

That got me hard. You wanted to question someone's metaphysical assumptions about the world we live in. DOPE SHIT, G.

But when I come in and question yours, you say "woah dude, pointless abstractions." Come on, man. If you don't want to debate at that level of abstraction, just say "sorry Hector, not really where I wanted to go" and leave it at that. And avoid saying stuff like this if you don't want me to flirt with you. It's like having a fat ass and wearing a tight dress - I'm probably gonna come say hi. Or don't respond at all - ignore the shit out of me. I'm not going to pester you, because you're not a chick and I'm not trying to fuck you (or am I?)

But instead of doing one of those, you got mad, responded to one or two things I said, and then told me like ten times that you don't want to debate because everything I say is horribly irrelevant and abstract, while at same time, you debated with me.

You're giving me debate LMR. Mixed signals, bruh.

I came here to challenge you, not insult you. If I insulted you along the way, my bad. I'm a dick. And I've been told I'm the biggest dick when I don't even mean to be. Seems this is one of those cases.

So here, I'll brush my ego completely to the side because now I'm real pumped - if I write up a response on the exact level that you want to play at, will you play along? Because I don't want to spend an hour typing just to have you flake on me.

So you down. Or nah?

p.s. of course I want a dick waving contest. "Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity!" Ecclesiastes 1:2

 

[Howell]

I came here to challenge you, not insult you. If I insulted you along the way, my bad. I'm a dick. And I've been told I'm the biggest dick when I don't even mean to be. Seems this is one of those cases.

So here, I'll brush my ego completely to the side because now I'm real pumped - if I write up a response on the exact level that you want to play at, will you play along? Because I don't want to spend an hour typing just to have you flake on me.

So you down. Or nah?

I don't know what exactly you're wanting to respond to, or what level you're talking about, but by all means: go ahead. You should start a new thread though. Feel free to carry over whatever quotes or themes from this one you want to explore into that one. This way it will be less a personal attack and more a general inquiry, open to everyone, and focused on understanding instead of on who's right and who's wrong. Well, at least initially

Howell