Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)

    Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?

    When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.

    Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?

    I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.

    Please share your views...
    There's a very simple answer to this. When we first started to evolve into something recognisably human, day-to-day existence involved a large number of exhausting, physically demanding tasks (something which has, in fact, remained true until very recently). Men were a) physically stronger and b) weren't taken out of action by childbirth. As human social conventions developed, this physical superiority was translated into new forms of power and authority - cultural, moral and economic as well as physical. Society developed whole cultural systems to cement men's power even further and when they didn't get what they want, the threat of physical force could still prevail. There was never a 'clean slate'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    Well OP you seem to be missing the fact that men are genetically physically superior, in general (and would have been much more so the case when mankind first began). So obviously, men just literally and physically took the dominant role. There should indeed be a gender equality in today's society, but please it really really pisses me off when people even try to argue then men are not physically dominant, which is obviously the cause for it.
    I agree with the physcial theory.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)
    Very true, I agree with that. I'm not one that subscribes to the notion of both women and men being equally capable of doing everything.

    However, if this view was universally accepted then it would not lead to gender equality would it? Because it would lead to women being told they can't do something because men are better, and vice versa.

    There's also the question of are men better at more things than woman are(or vice versa) and ultimately making them the generally better gender?
    If men are better at more things then whos to say they're the better gender? We don't need to worry that much about gender equality in this country, do we?. Religion doesnt think women are equal to males, i mean like look at iran. A wife is forced to have sex with her husband, thats rape. They dont think women can have a say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    k
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)
    I agree, so do you think the ideal notion of 'Gender Equality' is acceptable? If they're not the same then it can be argued that they should not be treated the same either, no? (I'm not implying this, genuinely asking you)
    Well I think that they should, of course get the same oppertunities. Like men think with the right side of their brain, making them better at logical things like maths and science with rely more on rules and pattern, whereas women think with the left side making them better at 'creative' things, like communication, causes and consequences of things etc.

    So often femenists say things that make me cringe, like women are just as strong as men, physically women have less muscle and emotionally they are a lot less stable (for lack of a better word at hand). Women might make worse builders than men (obviously people lie at different ends of the spectrum so some women might be just as capable as the men and some men might not be), a woman dressing up as a man, talking like a man and generally behaving like a man can still never be a man because they just aren't the same, they will never be a 'better' man than a real man.

    It would be like saying white people are not the same as black people, which is why we can justify treating them differently. It's wrong oviously because we are both people, and both deserve to be treated the same with respect and dignity.

    Personally I think we should embrace our differances. I was once told of by a raging femenist who accused me of being submissive for wearing red lipstick and a skirt because that is what men wanted us to wear. Which I think is petty, I think women should behave like that and accept what make them differant. I am all for using womanlyness as something as power and the fact men like it, rather than something to be ashamed of, or making you weaker in any way. Obviously being a stripper or something would be under different circumstances, but I think differences should be celebrated, rather than abolished.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)
    I've always been one for gender equality and believe there should be equal rights and no discrimination between genders.

    Often when this question of man vs woman was asked whilst emphasising man having more contributions to society, more discoveries etc. I always used to say that this has been the case because women have been socially oppressed in the earlier centuries and weren't given the same opportunities to make a difference and achieve all those things so it's not a fair comparison.

    Now my question is, WHY was that the case? Why were men dominant and held more importance in the social hierarchy for thousands of years? As in, how did it get to that stage...is the answer that men were 'better' than woman and so were able to establish that dominance and therefore earning that right to have more opportunities and be first in line?

    When human beings first started out there weren't any social conventions or gender inequality, it was a clean slate so it's not like the female species started out at a disadvantage being socially oppressed from the very minute of their existence.

    Is it a case of men establishing that they were naturally better and society/social dynamics evolved in a way that gave them the top step? It's not like they were handed their right to be the 'better' gender on a plate, surely it's because they earned it by demonstrating that it is indeed the case?

    I'd just like to point out I'm not saying that men are better than woman, nor am I trying to cause trouble with a debate that I'm sure has gone on long enough on here. I'm just trying to establish the reasons behind women being socially oppressed and therefore not being able to demonstrate their abilities as a gender.

    Please share your views...
    Men and women never started off on an equal footing. Since men tend to be competitive (a sexual selection strategy), they tend to be in power because an air of competitiveness and mutual suspicion provokes an arms race, in this case the arms race is in knowledge and social dominance. Men are dicks to each other by default (except in advanced societies where laws and social engineering protect the weak).

    Women, however, are Nice by default. They are wont to concede ground to the other person in an argument to get things friendly again, rather than to win.

    The dominance of men is more exuberant, hence why it gets noticed and judged to be "power". But in a different way, I bet David Cameron's completely whipped by his wife like any other husband, so do women hold power in interpersonal spheres?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, men have always been stronger and more able to dominate women.

    Also, I think the values we place on different achievements have changed. Back in cavemen days, women would naturally take on the role of nurturer, and men would be the hunter-gatherers. This was all good. These days, more traditionally feminine roles - still the ones women are more likely to take on - are not considered important or especially noteworthy. So because men on the whole achieve more on the breadwinning side of things (though this is changing), it's considered better.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    You know what, I'm not sexist at all, but the point about us evolving with men being leaders implying that men are better is interesting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    men and women are equal simply because no one can live without the other.and u know that deep inside u men can't bring children alone and women can't bring them alone too god created life like that no one can live alone sooooooo they are equal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Its probably harder being a woman. Imagine bleeding from your penis every month:eek: So i dont think we are in any position to say who is better.
    XD

    That had me in fits of laughter XD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think men and women have different things that they excel at , so back at the beginning of humanity the men were the hunters, the leaders, the doctors and the women looked after the kids, cooked, cleaned because they weren't as good at the other stuff as the men and just fell into those naturally maternal roles, both sets of skills were essential to survival.

    nowadays though women want to expand into fields that men traditionally have done because of higher pay/more glamorous, but men don't want to do what women have traditionally done, and so it creates an imbalance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    *Waits for the **** to hit the fan*

    Can of worms, OP, CAN OF WORMS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Men are ON AVERAGE better than women. It's also pretty obvious and there is really no point in arguing against this. Aside from the fact that men are physically stronger and more adept they are more capable of applying rational thought whereas the majority of women are not truly capable of this and are influenced by emotions and other silly nonsense. I'm fairly certain that, having said this, I will encounter a flurry of nonsensical emotionally-derived arguments from members of the opposite sex to rather eloquently prove this point. For every successful woman you will get 10 successful men. Men are more likely to strive for greatness whereas a woman is more likely to comfort herself in mediocrity. Why is it that the top expert in literally any field is always a man? It isn't because women are being 'oppressed' any more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Men are ON AVERAGE better than women. It's also pretty obvious and there is really no point in arguing against this. Aside from the fact that men are physically stronger and more adept they are more capable of applying rational thought whereas the majority of women are not truly capable of this and are influenced by emotions and other silly nonsense. I'm fairly certain that, having said this, I will encounter a flurry of nonsensical emotionally-derived arguments from members of the opposite sex to rather eloquently prove this point. For every successful woman you will get 10 successful men. Men are more likely to strive for greatness whereas a woman is more likely to comfort herself in mediocrity. Why is it that the top expert in literally any field is always a man? It isn't because women are being 'oppressed' any more.
    Lol, I love how no actual female has replied in over an hour. The phrse "he's not even worth it" springs to mind. Anyhooo, cset a vie!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, they just have different roles / strengths and weaknesses, you can't have one without the other.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BambieWambie)
    If men are better at more things then whos to say they're the better gender? We don't need to worry that much about gender equality in this country, do we?. Religion doesnt think women are equal to males, i mean like look at iran. A wife is forced to have sex with her husband, thats rape. They dont think women can have a say.
    That's Iran. Have you been to Pakistan where women work in prestigious jobs ie: headteachers? The prophet said something along the lines of:
    "The best of you is he who treats his wife well" Islam does not say anywhere that a wife can be forced to have sex with her husband. Some guy made it up, and guess what? It provoked protests in Iran, saying that's not religion at all.

    It's Iranian culture and not religion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperatore)
    I genuinely am! Thanks for the recommendation, will definitely look into it.
    I presume you've read the book? If so, what would be your response to the points I made...is there any reasoning that would allow you to counteract that argument?
    You've raised some interesting questions in your OP. I agree with you on your point that part of women's underachievement in society is due to their social oppression.

    I can try and explain what I believe are the main reasons for their subjugation in a few points...

    From the beginning of human interaction, there must have been something apparent to cause women's inferiority. The most obvious answer would be that it's due to physical inadequacies (although de Beauvoir also brings up several psychological reasons), as men are taller and stronger whereas women are weaker and have the physical burden of pregnancy, which limits their productive capacity.

    From the early ages, like the time of Nordic hunters, it seemed natural for men to go and hunt for food for himself, the wife and the children whilst women stayed at home to take care of the children (an instinctive assumption that the mother should care for the child she carried). This kind of dependency on men for food and thus survival creates an interesting gender dynamic where men are superior and women are trapped by their immanence.

    Woman needs to be married because she cannot survive without the food gathered, and later on money earned, by man. This dependency empowers man.

    As society becomes more structured, the act of gathering food is transformed into jobs in trade, farming, etc. The structure of society becomes more convoluted and, as men are in the position of power through having jobs, they are able to shape society to cater for their needs through the laws they enforce - thus a patriarchal society is created.
    They make laws that ensure that only men can read, write and get an education and create these 'conjugal rights'. Women are therefore trapped in their position of inferiority.

    I'd also say that Genesis 2-3 in the Bible depicts Eve as inferior to Adam: physically, mentally, intellectually, and created from Adam. As an influential text for all the centuries to pass, it indoctrinates an idea of female subjugation.

    I could go on...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Men are ON AVERAGE better than women.
    they are more capable of applying rational thought whereas the majority of women are not truly capable of this and are influenced by emotions and other silly nonsense.
    Do you define 'better' as being more emotional then? :holmes:

    As for OP, I think it's fairly obvious men are physically dominant and therefore were able to establish the social hierarchy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    Do you define 'better' as being more emotional then? :holmes:
    Reading comprehension is key. It would probably be too easy for me to declare how your grave misunderstanding reinforces the points I have previously posted so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not that stupid. You must be tired or something right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Billydodger)
    Lol, I love how no actual female has replied in over an hour. The phrse "he's not even worth it" springs to mind. Anyhooo, cset a vie!
    When there's a well-thought through, reasoned, backed-up argument to argue against then I will - but when it's just unsubstantiated insults (as with the post you quoted), what's the point in replying? Posts like that make me wonder what world the poster is living in, considering that the vast majority of women I know and work with are easily as rational and intelligent as men.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.