Women

[Jethro Tull]

-----

Woman: Women are mankind. Woman means womb-man or mind with a womb.

This really is a man’s world, or the mind’s world. Men and women definitely live in the world of the mind. Both the male and female of the human species are mankind/mindkind, but in some important ways, females are superior to males.

In the future, more women will be political leaders then men, because they are better at resolving conflicts without violence. Evolution has programmed males for violence and aggression. Most males like violence, most females do not.

Evolution has programmed females to have more people skills, such as patience, compromising, talking things out, or screaming it out, as the case may be. The point is, they do not resort to violence as much as men do to solve problems.

Men are always looking for any legal excuse (war) to get into a life and death fight. We do not think we do, but history says we do. It is in our genes, and is the way we have been dealing with problems for as long as we have been on earth.

How many women love guns? Just about none of them do. How many men love guns? Just about all of us do. It is not something we only learn, it is in our genes.

-----

Page 21 from the free book, The Present at Truth Contest

I almost stopped reading this book because it seemed too assertive, but as soon as I got to the section about men and women, I was hooked. This section makes so much sense to me, and I agree with most of the points. It says a lot of things that are obvious, but we hardly ever think about them. Check out this section by going to the free book, and please share your thoughts!

Namaste

Edited September 4, 2009 by Jethro Tull

[woof woof woof]

plenty woman love guns! you'd be suprised. where did you get your information from?

plenty sensitive men out there too!

men and woman need eachother. a balance of both sexes would be optimal I guess. One dominating the other is never good.

I'd love a confident woman that is not to girly girly to handle a gun!

[bluejay700777]

Yeah I'm not a fan of arguments based on presumptious generalisations.

Equating a love or hate of guns to genetics in the way that is done with say awareness of heights or fear of snakes is rather ridiculous.

Gender nor sex is not a valid point of reference for either violent tendencies or leadership skills imo.

Is the entire book written in such a way?

[Mala Lingua]

How many women love guns? Just about none of them do. It is not something we only learn, it is in our genes.

Come to Texas and talk to the women here; I suspect you may want to reevaluate that statement.

[drugo]

-----

Woman: Women are mankind. Woman means womb-man or mind with a womb.

This really is a man’s world, or the mind’s world. Men and women definitely live in the world of the mind. Both the male and female of the human species are mankind/mindkind, but in some important ways, females are superior to males.

In the future, more women will be political leaders then men, because they are better at resolving conflicts without violence. Evolution has programmed males for violence and aggression. Most males like violence, most females do not.

Evolution has programmed females to have more people skills, such as patience, compromising, talking things out, or screaming it out, as the case may be. The point is, they do not resort to violence as much as men do to solve problems.

Men are always looking for any legal excuse (war) to get into a life and death fight. We do not think we do, but history says we do. It is in our genes, and is the way we have been dealing with problems for as long as we have been on earth.

How many women love guns? Just about none of them do. How many men love guns? Just about all of us do. It is not something we only learn, it is in our genes.

-----

Page 21 from the free book, The Present at The Truth Contest

I almost stopped reading this book because it seemed too assertive, but as soon as I got to the section about men and women, I was hooked. This section makes so much sense to me, and I agree with most of the points. It says a lot of things that are obvious, but we hardly ever think about them. Check out this section by going to the free book, and please share your thoughts!

Namaste

All these distinctions in gender you mentioned i strongly disagree with. The biological differences between male and female, i suggest, do not influence intellectual, emotive, aggressive human characteristics enough to make these huge generalisations, such as women are less likely to make war. Is Gandhi a women deep down? What about Margaret Thatcher, the notorious UK prime minister who destroyed indigenous communities, waged wars and was generally really aggressive? Is she, and all the other hihgly aggressive women i know, genetic mistakes?

If you are genuinely interested in this debate see some of the famous feminist philosophers and thinkers, such as Judith Butler - name of the book is bodies somehitng, lived bodies maybe??, and Iris Young - Throwing Like a Girl .

I would argue that culture has produced males seeming like aggressive 'war hungry animals', and females as 'sensitive, dishwashing, mothers'.

Throughout history (and common in the contemporary world) the repression of women across culture is an amazing phenomena. I know of one exception of an indigenous group in Kenya where females hold more political power than males.

In the late sixties feminists thinkers and activists revolutionised, at least for academic circles, how the distinction between male and female is understood. There is no strong biological evidence that women are more emotional, sensitive, or less violent etc. I can see how people would make the assumption that evolution has produces this difference but a lot of well informed thinkers have gone to pain staking lengths, running experiments, researching historical formations and interpretations of gender relations, to discover that there is no biological foundation for women inherently embodying qualities

such as patience, compromising, talking things out, or screaming it out, as the case may be. The point is, they do not resort to violence as much as men do to solve problems.

.

One of the main issues with people believing this distinction is that it creates a license for negative tendencies, such as males behaving violently and neglecting other aspects of being human such as loving patience. In other words, if you think that males and females are 'hard-wired' to behave a certain way then you will more than likely accept when this manipulative cultural construction emerges, such as males acting violently and females being clinically depressed from overwhelming emotions.

Males can be, and are sometimes more patient, non-violent, emotional, sensitive, caring, and 'feminine', than females. The distinction of male and female seems to be produced in myriad different forms from culture, rather than any notion of biological evolution.

I agree that the 'feminist' qualities you mentioned, such as patience, non-violence etc, are hopefully the running candidates for the future evolution of humans, however i don't think that any sort of biological gender distinction fences these qualities of from half the species. In other words, i don;t think it's ultimately harder for men to be more emotional, sensitive, caring, non-violent than women. If this is the case with you and your relationships with women around you, then i would recommend that you should work with some popular feminist concepts along with some strong medicines to help you think and feel deeply about the issue.

Edited July 6, 2009 by mooksha

[Chiral]

In the future, more women will be political leaders then men, because they are better at resolving conflicts without violence. Evolution has programmed males for violence and aggression. Most males like violence, most females do not.

Evolution has programmed females to have more people skills, such as patience, compromising, talking things out, or screaming it out, as the case may be. The point is, they do not resort to violence as much as men do to solve problems.

Men are always looking for any legal excuse (war) to get into a life and death fight. We do not think we do, but history says we do. It is in our genes, and is the way we have been dealing with problems for as long as we have been on earth.

"And the meek shall inherit the Earth"...could that simply be "women"...I'd say so...I agree with most of what you have said to tell the truth...you have to look at this point from a fundamentalist viewpoint...once you do you will see that it is true...very true.

H.

[drugo]

fundamentalist viewpoint...

Why stick with the out-dated fundamentals when there are new ideas that make much more sense and help males and females push forward in their lives rather than constrain and repress?

.....................................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_difference

The existence of a gender difference does not necessarily identify whether the trait is due to nature or environment. Some traits are obviously innate (for example, reproductive organs), others obviously environmental (for example, given names), while for others the relationship is either multi-cause or unknown.

Gender role theory and Alice Eagly claims that boys and girls learn the appropriate behavior and attitudes from the family and overall culture they grow up with, and so non-physical gender differences are a product of socialization. Some feminists see gender differences as caused by patriarchy or discrimination , although difference feminism argues for an acceptance of gender differences. Conservative masculists tend to see gender differences as inherent in human nature, while liberal masculists see gender differences as caused by matriarchy or discrimination.

Edited July 6, 2009 by mooksha

[Chiral]

Because when you strip away all the bullshit and the examples and look at it from a genetic viewpoint women are and always will be less aggressive period...men are not...we are hungry and thirst for food and wish to capture it violently and protect our young with violence first and foremost...the very root core of the two beings is that men are aggressive, hunting, mono machines and women are caring, all points viewing and more rational towards an issue than men will ever be...this is the setup and this is how and why it has worked for however long we have been walking this plain...looking at this fundamentally is no more outdated than the theories of social evolution as opposed to material evolution...stick a modern man in a situation of live or die in a harsh environment and he will use his fundamental genetic abiliyies to capture prey and survive and harness that energy to make himself leader and protector of his possessions and family through what ever means necessary.

H.

edit...I forgot to add a point that crossed my mind and is also for consideration...if we are to believe that the differences between man and women stem from the way they are raised via their family and mothers and fathers...a sort of preconditioning...then how do explain when brothers and sisters that come from the very same household still act completely differently..ie the girls are more passive and tolerant and the boys are aggressive and competitive...if we are to believe that it's all in the surroundings and the way they are raised then surely they should start to behave very similar should they not.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Hunab Ku

[drugo]

Because when you strip away all the bullshit and the examples and look at it from a genetic viewpoint women are and always will be less aggressive period...

I can appreciate your views, there are obvious differences in genetic disposition, such as hormone levels fromm males to female. For instance, around 7 weeks after conception the fetus develops growing levels of testosterone and estrogen, with larger amounts of the former the fetus generally develops male organs such as a penis. However, it is not simply black and white, some women have large amounts of testosterone and some males have large amounts of estrogen. The understanding of hormones in humans is more like a large scale of grey from one extreme to another, with no individual embodying either extremes. Moreover, different foods can enhance or decrease hormone levels rendering the genetic disposition unstable or 'changeable' externally. In other words, a individual male is never only testosterone, rather males embody varying levels of testosterone and estrogen.

I don't think in the contemporary world that the genetic setup of hormones or any biological sequence hardwires males to be aggressive and females to be 'sensitive'. I used to be aggressive growing up now i've realised that it's a destructive force which just holds me back from getting the things i want. Therefore i have developed different capacities to 'survive', such as intelligence, intuition, passion or enthusiasm, and love. I think both women and men biologically have the basic platform for realising these contemporary evolutionary qualities.

we [men] are hungry and thirst for food and wish to capture it violently and protect our young with violence first and foremost...the very root core of the two beings is that men are aggressive, hunting, mono machines and women are caring, all points viewing and more rational towards an issue than men will ever be...this is the setup and this is how and why it has worked for however long we have been walking this plain

The world is a lot different now than it was 60-1000 years ago. The gender distinction proclaiming intellectual and emotive differences between genders has been highly discredited by philosophers, and scientists, both social and biological, at large. This is an anthropological and philosophical constant. Despite this, the general public seems to lag behind the nuanced ideas emerging in intellectual realms. The general perspective, which a pleb in the West develops, is that males are aggressive, non-rational, 'hunters' and females are sensitive, caring etc. And because this is the general idea kicking around the public, this is what people believe and therefore essentially create and live. Reality is a very fragile nexus. The fact that gender differences seem so real does not necessary mean it is based on any inherent biological principle. It used to be reality that 'blacks' were intellectually inferior to 'whites', this view was held strongly by the scientists and the Western public only until half a century or so ago. Now the idea is completely discredited by anyone who has done the research. The same is the case between the genetic differences of males to females correlating with aggression, emotion, etc.

stick a modern man in a situation of live or die in a harsh environment and he will use his fundamental genetic abiliyies to capture prey and survive

I don't think only men will assert physical aggression in situations of life or death. One example comes to mind, a year or so ago i was on the Ganges river in Varanasi, Indian where there is a lot of poverty. A local appeared offering potatoes from a giant sac, women and men were both desperately competing with physical aggressively to get the food and survive. Both male and female seem to 'use their fundamental genetic abiliyies to capture prey and survive' (Hunab).

i would live to repeat what i wrote before as i think it's suited, 'One of the main issues with people believing this distinction is that it creates a license for negative tendencies, such as males behaving violently and neglecting other aspects of being human such as loving patience. In other words, if you think that males and females are 'hard-wired' to behave a certain way then you will more than likely accept when this manipulative cultural construction emerges, such as males acting violently and females being clinically depressed from overwhelming emotions.'

[drugo]

edit...I forgot to add a point that crossed my mind and is also for consideration...if we are to believe that the differences between man and women stem from the way they are raised via their family and mothers and fathers...a sort of preconditioning...then how do explain when brothers and sisters that come from the very same household still act completely differently..ie the girls are more passive and tolerant and the boys are aggressive and competitive...if we are to believe that it's all in the surroundings and the way they are raised then surely they should start to behave very similar should they not.

The general world view of the West implicitly feels and thinks that women are passive, emotional etc and men are aggressive, non-rational etc. This permeates throughout the beliefs, values and practices of the culture, including family units and the individual. Therefore males and females, or brothers and sisters, in the same family continue to exhibit the gender dichotomy of aggression/passive which the heights of science and philosophy discredit, despite the fact that they are brother and sister, or raised in the same family.

Families exist within societies or communities, and they are shaped by their social relationships within these collectives. We humans are dependent on one another from basic survival to emotional security and the understanding of ourselves, our identity, amongst other things. This dependence creates what Castoriadis calls the 'significant other'. Society and the significant other play a massive role in the construction of how we view ourselves and the world, as we are practically dependent on society.

As i have suggested, the view that gender creates a hardwired world where males are non-rational and aggressive, and females are emotional and belong in the kitchen with their soft hands, is a fallacy which propelles a destructive world view repressing both males and females. If you believe and embody this world view, as a male, you will find it harder to resolve the silly tendencies of aggression etc. and as a female, you will feel inferior and shit.

I think its better to aside with the majority of scientists and thinkers, those who suggest that males are not biologically prone to aggressive, non-rational behaviour, and females are not biologically more likely to be rational, caring, sensitive, emotional, tolerant and passive.

[Chiral]

I don't think in the contemporary world that the genetic setup of hormones or any biological sequence hardwires males to be aggressive and females to be 'sensitive'. I used to be aggressive growing up now i've realised that it's a destructive force which just holds me back from getting the things i want. Therefore i have developed different capacities to 'survive', such as intelligence, intuition, passion or enthusiasm, and love. I think both women and men biologically have the basic platform for realising these contemporary evolutionary qualities

I don't think only men will assert physical aggression in situations of life or death. One example comes to mind, a year or so ago i was on the Ganges river in Varanasi, Indian where there is a lot of poverty. A local appeared offering potatoes from a giant sac, women and men were both desperately competing with physical aggressively to get the food and survive. Both male and female seem to 'use their fundamental genetic abiliyies to capture prey and survive' (Hunab).

The clearly defined difference between when you learn, or realise that aggression is a destructive force, and you develop different capacities to survive...and a woman who develops aggression as a way to survive in a mans world is that, the man can easily return to his built in aggression and stop acting, very very quickly...as it's inherently part of his design by default...same for the woman....she returns to her non violent character very simply and drops her act when she has too...so too summarize...A man has to continually act out his adaptive style to fit into situations or work ethics as a non threatening man...A woman has to act out her masculinity and toughness to fit into the mind world of the aggressive man...both of these types of behaviors are inherently made up and are merely a form of mimickery...their true nature is merely put on hold for however long it takes for that person to achieve their chosen goals...aggression will always be waiting for the man when he needs it and passion and sensitiveness will also always be waiting for the woman as they are naturally occurring states of physical and mental morphology.

H.

[drugo]

The clearly defined difference between when you learn, or realise that aggression is a destructive force, and you develop different capacities to survive...and a woman who develops aggression as a way to survive in a mans world is that, the man can easily return to his built in aggression and stop acting, very very quickly...as it's inherently part of his design by default...same for the woman....she returns to her non violent character very simply and drops her act when she has too...so too summarize...A man has to continually act out his adaptive style to fit into situations or work ethics as a non threatening man...A woman has to act out her masculinity and toughness to fit into the mind world of the aggressive man...both of these types of behaviors are inherently made up and are merely a form of mimickery...their true nature is merely put on hold for however long it takes for that person to achieve their chosen goals...aggression will always be waiting for the man when he needs it and passion and sensitiveness will also always be waiting for the woman as they are naturally occurring states of physical and mental morphology.

H.

Interesting idea but it seems to conflict with the popular view coming from social and biological science. I'm guess your evidence is based on your personal relationships and experience. In contrast, the scientific community, with the high majority suggesting that males are not biologically 'designed' to be aggressive, non-rational etc, draw their conclusions based on rigorous scientific inquiry into both cultural phenomena and biological phenomena.

I like your creativity though

[ThunderIdeal]

but hang on, there are wild physical differences beyond just reproductive traits, not to mention differences in the brain. i don't care if aggression comes into this but there are very real differences everywhere you look, even if they aren't embodied by ever member of the species (of course there is grey area, to the extent that we have the term transgender).

for what it's worth i've come to think of female as the original sex. this can be demonstrated pretty easily by examining the animal kingdom and genetics.

[Teotzlcoatl]

mind with a womb

Haha yes, I'm a walking, talking, thinking vagina!

Edited July 6, 2009 by Teotz'

[drugo]

but hang on, there are wild physical differences beyond just reproductive traits, not to mention differences in the brain. i don't care if aggression comes into this but there are very real differences everywhere you look, even if they aren't embodied by ever member of the species (of course there is grey area, to the extent that we have the term transgender).

Fully,

I can see how people would link biological gender differences with behaviour such as aggression, non-rationality, caring, passivity, cleaning etc. but studies seem to suggest that these type of personality traits are not biologically hardwired for each gender, rather it seems that they have emerged out of history through diverse cultural landscapes. And i'd argue that a lot of the cultural legacies we carry are in need of 'ironing out', in other words, certain historical behavioural qualities that direct our personal behaviour today seem 'backwards' and destructive, and are obstacles in the depths of our species which we should aspire to transcend. These qualities i suggest are aggressive behaviour, violence, war, certain non-rational behaviour etc.

Simply because more males exhibit these qualities does not mean that it is a biological constant. If you are seriously interested in this debate, rather than basing your ideas on personal experience or an intuition which has arguably been shaped by popular perspectives from common culture, i'd suggest checking out some of the big feminists critiquing the issue [ref. earlier in thread], along with the marginal biological fundamentalists. I think you will find, like the high majority of those researching the topic, that biological disposition does not determine any sort of aggressive, non-rational, or passive and caring forms of behaviour.

Once this conclusions is truely felt, and lived, not just argued and thought, then you should find yourself (both male and female) in a great position to move beyond the corrupting forms of behaviour which decay aspects of your being-in-the-world. From this realisation you can move into more inclusive, open, loving, and successful paths in life, regardless of whether you're a lad or a lass.

[ThunderIdeal]

i think we're on the same page mooksha. men and women are both capable of the same behaviour, virtuous or despicable. however i also see truth in what hunab is saying. for instance, men are physically stronger, so say there is an encounter with a an aggressive man, another man is more likely to stand and fight because he has a good chance of defending himself, a woman has less chance to defend herself because her muscles usually aren't as strong. a man is more likely to go hunting some beast because he has thinner hips and no bouncing boobs so he can run better, and his eyesight is keener at a distance, he's also better at judging distance and hurling a spear. so, these are physical traits that could mean males develop aggression more because they're better equipped for it. in the same way, a woman's brain is BETTER at diplomacy because she is more attuned to how other's feel, is better at using her words and facial expressions, so she might be more likely to engage in diplomacy because she has the tools for it. furthermore, the very LACK OF aggression tools, or the lack of diplomatic tools, makes either sex more likely to choose the path they are equipped for.

hopefully i'm not refuting you mooksha, just adding my perspective to what you're saying. i hope you're right because there is such a schism between the sexes that some people seem to think sex is the only way they can relate, i'd like to see them proven dead wrong and for couples to get along and understand each other better but in order to do that i think the differences need to be explored and appreciated. it's no different to studying why animals behave in particular ways, by understanding the reason for behaviour it is less bewildering.

[Chiral]

I guess in short women and men have both learned adaptation well now, and use it blend in and create a better place to get along with a certain amount of harmony...but at the end of the day those adaptive processes are not long term and are relatively new so we have a ways to go before anybody can truly say that we have changed permanently for the better...I'd also like to know where the scientific data for these so called studies was done... seeing as how more than half the earth's population is third world and starving or at war or in some case's both...I don't think those people have been asked their opinion, and I doubt very much if there has been any behavioral change in those types of communities.

H.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Hunab Ku

[drugo]

seeing as how more than half the earth's population is third world and starving or at war or in some case's both...I don't think those people have been asked their opinion, and I doubt very much if there has been any behavioral change in those types of communities.

H.

I don't have the motivation to offer you deep insight into how wrong this statement is. I'd just like to say, that as an anthropology student I felt sick in my stomach reading this. Your statement is highly misinformed and ethnocentric. Indigenous cultures are not stagnant puddles of water on the side of the Western 'highway'. Rather they are turbulent, alive, fluid and highly evolving systems for living. This includes gender relations, ie, how males and females interact amongst culture at large.

[drugo]

in the same way, a woman's brain is BETTER at diplomacy because she is more attuned to how other's feel, is better at using her words and facial expressions, so she might be more likely to engage in diplomacy because she has the tools for it. furthermore, the very LACK OF aggression tools, or the lack of diplomatic tools, makes either sex more likely to choose the path they are equipped for.

How did you come up with the conclusion that women are more attune with feelings and better at using words and facial expressions?

[Chiral]

I don't think it's misinformed...I've done my fair share of traveling and have gathered my own information from my own experiences, now I might be generalising somewhat but show me a study that can give 100% accurate data and information on this subject and I will gladly read it...have your scientists been into the jungles of Sumatra and interviewed the tens of thousands of people who have lived their fairly undisturbed for hundreds of years...you tell me...let me hazard a guess...that most of the data collected by such studies comes from civilised westernised populations...would I be right, or can you say that a lot of, or more than %50 of data has come from the slums in Brazil or Columbia...perhaps the shanty towns of India may have been missed also...I don't know...but I find it hard to believe these people think too much about our PC debate when their primary motivation is to survive and stay alive and avoid disease or malnutrition.

H.

[Chiral]

I'd just like to say, that as an anthropology student I felt sick in my stomach reading this. Your statement is highly misinformed and ethnocentric. Indigenous cultures are not stagnant puddles of water on the side of the Western 'highway'. Rather they are turbulent, alive, fluid and highly evolving systems for living. This includes gender relations, ie, how males and females interact amongst culture at large.

Yes and these cultures have maintained a way of life for thousands of years with little change to hierarchy, and roles that each gender occupies...the main changes have come from westerners that have introduced them selves into the communities, and they adopted some of the western ways and religions...if it wasn't for the west intruding these communities would be still be largely untouched and untainted by the western brush...they have their own very intricate way of life which is unique to them...very little changes, but the men are and always will be considered the wise/elders and be respected as such...the women have their role of obedience and child care...and you cannot deny that, surely...even today for example, most of the communities in the Amazon basin... the men are the only ones allowed to take part in aya ceromonies and men are the only ones allowed to chew coca or snuff yopo etc etc...these are communities based on strong cultural tradition and they don't like change...we on the other hand are like Chameleons and use mimickery to play hide and seek... see if I can blend in here tactics are the new adaptive behavioral patterns...so many new laws and restrictions and rules and health concerns and blah blah blah at work and in the community in general...it's so damn rigid and stiff and all caught up in it's own ass it's wonder anyone can extract any information from a modern western civilization all.

H.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Hunab Ku

[drugo]

Yes and these cultures have maintained a way of life for thousands of years with little change to hierarchy, and roles that each gender occupies...the main changes have come from westerners that have introduced them selves into the communities

I'm sorry man, but the sociology and anthropology community does not support this view. Your views are more or less how i saw the indigenous and non-indigenous world before i studied the stuff, and the current conversation which social scientists are having sees all culture as highly fluid and transformative. I agree that western imperialism has caused huge changes for the non-western world, however the view that the 'primitive' world maintains a way of life unchanged for thousands of years is highly discredited by anthropologists and social scientists.

[drugo]

I don't think it's misinformed...I've done my fair share of traveling and have gathered my own information from my own experiences, now I might be generalising somewhat but show me a study that can give 100% accurate data and information on this subject and I will gladly read it...have your scientists been into the jungles of Sumatra and interviewed the tens of thousands of people who have lived their fairly undisturbed for hundreds of years...you tell me...let me hazard a guess...that most of the data collected by such studies comes from civilised westernised populations...would I be right, or can you say that a lot of, or more than %50 of data has come from the slums in Brazil or Columbia...perhaps the shanty towns of India may have been missed also...I don't know...but I find it hard to believe these people think too much about our PC debate when their primary motivation is to survive and stay alive and avoid disease or malnutrition.

H.

Anthropology was practically born when European colonialism took off. Since then it has changed a lot, especially in the last two decades where it has experienced a massive critique of itself. The current conversation between social scientists is huge, mediated mostly through journals and book publications, and also seminars and lectures. The basic set up has two parts, one the one hand you have ethnographers, they are the researches who go and collect data, observe and participate in the culture. Social scientists usually focus on one or a few areas or topics, for example, Pakistani diapora communities in Dubai or something like gender inequality amongst exiled Tibeten communities in north India. These ethnographers research specific areas for decades through participant observation and research that means learning the language, culture etc. The social scientists who do not collect data, or conduct ethnographic research are called 'arm chair anthropologists'. They basically read heaps and heaps of ethnographies and develop theories and insights regarding the data.

The contemporary conversation is sooooo large, my university has registered with thousands of journals publishing articles every 3 months or so and the library catalogue has a phenomenal amount of books discussing various ethnographies and anthropological concepts, its a bit overwhelming when you first start to do research because of the amount of information out there and flooding in.

From this huge amount of research trends have emerged, and one of these trends is the idea that aggression, rationality, passivity, caring etc are not inherently biological, rather these type of qualities are shaped into gender roles by culture. Another anthropological constant is the idea that indigenous cultures are characterised as narratives full of change, turbulent transformation and 'evolution', not as cultures that have maintained the basic same way of life for thousands of years.

If you are genuinely interested in this statement, and not just out to play ego games of 'i was right you are wrong', in other words, if you are serious about expanding your knowledge and consciousness through intellectual discussion i can dig up a journal article introducing these common anthropological principles emerging through the intellectual world.

I hope my writing style hasn't made me come across as arrogant or anything, i'm new to this form of discussion and still learning how to use this medium

Thanks for the discussion

[Chiral]

Nope I'm not here to play ego games at all man it's just my opinion and you could probably label me as an armchair anthropologist...living with an anthropologist for 10 years...my ex wife was one an anthropology student I mean ...it has rubbed off on me somewhat...we used to have some heated discussions on this very topic...I just have a lot of trouble being convinced the data is accurate and how it is collected in is a non threatening manner ie;...the real data, uncorrupted data would ideally be collected by flies on walls without any knowledge of the collector being involved...I'm quite impressed that you can say that data has been collected from third world communities...although I'm still very skeptical of how long it would take for one to become submerged in a culture to truly understand the finer details of it...I'd imagine it would take a lifetime to truly understand another culture...a German chap, cant remember his name, entrepreneur...went to live in Indonesia and decided top set up a textiles industry in the small village he decided to call home with him and his local Indonesian wife...he made many jobs for locals with his textiles factory and brought much happiness to the locals who could now eat and live a little better... but...he was once quoted as saying that after spending 40 years living with these people he was convinced that he will never fully understand them...now to me that says unless you are born into a culture you can never really know that culture no matter how long you submerged your self in it...we may be wandering slightly off topic here but none the less it's an interesting topic...always will be with me.

H.

[mutant]

I admit I did not read everything, but I am somewhere in the middle between hunab + mooksha. I strongly believe that women and men DO have different 'traits'. They are a different animal overall.

And this is easily explained and it's pretty logical actually, from the part they have to play in life. They give birth, they have to be more compromised, they are comissioned by nature [mammals] to raise the kids in most of the cases, so they have to be more patient, emotional, commited to the ones they love. I don't care about studies and such, these are stuff science cannot really touch.

What I clearly see, is in accordance to what seems reasonable to me from natures and evolution's point of view. And of course, saying that most women are like that, doesn't mean all of them are like that. It's a tendency that can colour the arguement, not some general conclusion. The fact that there are sensitive men, and some of us are, lol, definately not hunab though , doesn't mean that man hasn't got that hunting matcho thing in his genes...

The fact that men can literally fuck around , be successful in that [as they will have plenty of kids with different mothers], and never take care of them [each mother will] doesn't mean modern men act like that or that they would love to be like that, or that man cannot choose a sensible and responsible civilised family life, but I argue that the insticts and mechanisms are more or less like what I have been suggesting.

On the other hand the female is the one who usually 'bounds' the male with kids and family and such, males are more often than females postponing or even negative in regards with having a kid, marrying, family and such...

According to this, even though they might seem more emotional than men, they might often have a greater and nicer organisation scheme [so as the kid is raised properly] or they are sure known to act agressively or violently if their kid is under attack...

PS: I have the suspcicion, that like in other discussions, some people describe what can, should, must happen, or what we 'd like to happen. I am talking about what I perceive as truth, what happens in general, what are we like etc...

Edited July 7, 2009 by mutant