GameBanshee Forums

Since this discussion is going a bit off topic in the other thread, (As fable hinted at ) I figured to start this thread to take away the off topic posts from over there. I'll get around to posting here in a bit, after I gather my thought...what I can of them anyway, and try and put my opinion into a better voice than I think I did in my last post.

I see. And I suppose before the Victorian Era...and even during primitive ages, such as the Stone Age, women were also conditioned to 'not display sexual arousal'? In the time of the caves, nothing suggests that was there any 'conditioning'. And yet, like primitive animals, the males would sexually abuse the females...not the other way around. All I'm saying is that men are more sexually agressive.

I don't see how any accurate statement can be made on anything that might have happened in prehistoricle times. There is no recorded record of anything that went on during that time. At any rate, after centuries of society setting standards as to how gender roles should be enforced, I don't think it would have any real bearing anyway.

My point was, which you didn't get, that if women were so sexually driven as men, then you'd have male prostitutes and women masterbating to PlayGirls and things like that on a large scale. This is hardly the instance.

Males don't have any monopoly on masterbation. It's a lot more common in females than most people think. Most of the women I have dated admit to doing it, and the ones that didn't, seemed to be uncomfortable enough with the topic to cause room for doubt.

Don't say...not nearly as many as the opposite. Legally speaking (at least here)...a women cannot rape a man...as rape constitutes forcing the penis into a vagina.

Guys get raped, legally speaking or not. The thing is, how many men are going to stand up, and go through the court system saying that they were forced to have sex? For the most part, they would be ridiculed, and likely not believed. Not to mention many men would veiw that as a knock against their manhood.

Still doesn't deny the fact that most women have mood swings (until they learn to control it) when they have PMT.

Most do, but then again, teenage boys aren't the most rational and clear thinking group in the world either I remember having my fair share of moody days and times I was biting everyones head off for no apparent reason. But I do agree that this is a special condition that only women have to deal with...thank God

Right. But nothing is hard wired...and I've never said it was. I've just been stating the natural way things go, IMO. Women, for having had the child inside them, have a deeper bond than men have. It's funny how other women here (including my mother) think the same as me

I think this is a case where we just disagree. The way I interpretted your reasoning, women were biologically pre-disposed to me nurturing, protective parents. To me that insinuated that is was hard wired into their make-up.

Once again, did I ever say women don't enjoy sex? I just said they are not as sexually agressive as men. If you need statistics to support this, I'll be ready to dig 'em up.

Here I think we have a misunderstanding. I was not arguing that women enjoy sex, I was trying to say that women are equally aggressive when it comes to sex, but for the most part this aggresion surfaces under different circumstances. I don't veiw aggression in the braod since of approaching someone on the street. I do agree that men are typically more aggressive there. I just thinks it's more because society says that a man should be the one to make the first move, ask a girl out, etc, although there are many women who do routinly make the first move. Statistics may prove the higher likelyhood of men to approach the women as opposed to the other way around, but they only speak of the numbers, not the reason behind why those numbers are what they are.


As far as being able to prove everything by professional magazines etc, for the most part, you can find respected and capable professionals on both sides of the issue, as is the case with most things. Like fable already said, there are several members here who are in the field and know much more than I do about hits, and will likely show up and make me look bad as well

Well - I didn't feel it was neasecary to start a new topic - but anyways….

I don't question the fact that there are biological differences between the males and females.

I just think that many of the "clear cut" differences come from culture/conditioning/society.

The females have in the past been set in one role as have the male, due to the physiological differences. Strength and what not. This meant that men often were the "breadwinner". He was out hunting, farming etc. Thus it was a natural development (in terms of society) that we saw this continue with the industrial revolution, and the man entered the factories and produced there instead of in the field. This accounts for thousands and thousands of years of evolution and history, and thus "conditioning".

However - all this changed in WW2. There men had to leave to fight (another cultural stigma, only men could fight in wars) - and then suddenly there were a shortage of workforce. The women naturally took this up and started working and becoming the breadwinner, earning the money to live for.
At that time, the roles started shifting. But this was only 50-60ish years ago.

Now a day we see more and more women doing things that for these 50years ago seemed unthinkable. There is practically no difference between women and men in any aspect of society because it is no longer about physical differences. It is not about who is better to physical kill a wholly mammoth and drag it back to the cave.

And when you look at all the other things throughout history, it is very clear to me that cultural conditioning is what makes the largest difference between men and female.
Just take a look at society today and women’s "roles". They are the same as men’s.
It just takes time - after all there is thousands of years of conditioning to do battle with, but the "revolution" over the last decades or so should be a really good indicator that this conditioning is disappearing fast - thus furthermore "proving" that it is the decisive factor.

I'm a strong believer that environment means much more then heredity when shaping our minds as individuals.

Hello. I'm Lost One. And I believe that men and women are different...not only physically...but also mentally...as a result of the biological differences (and ...I'll not deny) cultural conditioning.

I will only state my case for men & women thinking differently as the result of biological differences.

1. Male and female brains are different.

Sources: (though number 2 is rather simplistic...it has great credentials, coming from the Science Museum of London...a place I used to visit myself)

1
2
3

2. Men are more sexually driven than women.

1
2

From the book I read, 'Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus' - it says something I think rings true...that men get turned on like switch lights (rapidly) and women like volume knobs (gradually). Is this not true? I'm not saying that women don't want sex. Quite the opposite. But that men 'click' as soon as they see a pretty female (or get turned on faster) than females, suggesting, if nothing, a faster, sexual drive.

Statistics also show that there are many more cases for men raping women than women forcing a man to have sex with her. And while a man 'forced' to have sex might enjoy it, this is rarely the case for female rape victims.

Also, more males, during adolescence, masturbate (and with more frequency) than females do. (I'll post the figures, if you wish).

3. Men are more violent than women.

From what I've read about in the net, it is said that women can be just as violent as men. I agree with this..and there are cases where women have been linked more than men to causing domestic violence.
However, it seems to be because of a man's stronger build and higher testosterone levels (which can also be found in women...but usually higher in men), not to mention social conditioning, that results in men being more violent.
However, I'll agree that women can be just as violent. But at this current age, is clearly not the case, on a global scale...but might change for the future.

Bloodstalker wrote:I don't see how any accurate statement can be made on anything that might have happened in prehistoricle times. There is no recorded record of anything that went on during that time. At any rate, after centuries of society setting standards as to how gender roles should be enforced, I don't think it would have any real bearing anyway.

Alright, we don't have to use prehistoric times. How about we use the primitive societies of today, like the Indian tribes here in Brazil, for example? Even before they became connected to modern societies, they were still male-dominated, and the males would do the hunting and all that, while the females stayed at home with the children. Is this cultural conditioning? Perhaps. But even in different tribes isolated from the rest of the world, the same results could be seen. Male dominance.

Of course, this is not to say that society should remain dominantly male. Males are not as much needed for their strength anymore, and women have proven capable of doing anything a man can do. However, as a species, males are still inherently more aggressive than women, as this has been passed on from generation to generation.
However, in no way do I believe women will become as physically aggressive as males. They do not have the bodies for it, like we do. I once skirmished with an older girl when I was a child, and I accidentally punched her breast. It hurt her, even though it was a weak punch. A woman's breasts is sensitive and inhibits her when fighting, and can inhibit other things (if they are particularly big) like running, jumping and other athletic things. And naturally, they also have a weaker build than men.

Males don't have any monopoly on masterbation. It's a lot more common in females than most people think. Most of the women I have dated admit to doing it, and the ones that didn't, seemed to be uncomfortable enough with the topic to cause room for doubt.

Did I ever say males have a monopoly? However, figures show that more males masturbate and with more frequency than females. Although you'll not likely find national enquiries about this as it's not something countries worry too much about.

Guys get raped, legally speaking or not. The thing is, how many men are going to stand up, and go through the court system saying that they were forced to have sex? For the most part, they would be ridiculed, and likely not believed. Not to mention many men would veiw that as a knock against their manhood.

I'm sure a guy wouldn't mind being 'raped' by a woman, if it doesn't involve a strap-on and going through the backdoor. I'm down for a hot girl jumping on me and forcing me to have sex with her any time of the day. However, I hardly think a girl would enjoy being raped by a guy, even if an attractive one.

I think this is a case where we just disagree. The way I interpretted your reasoning, women were biologically pre-disposed to me nurturing, protective parents. To me that insinuated that is was hard wired into their make-up.

Well, yeah. I always found it natural for women to give birth to babies, and then nurture it with breastfeeding during its growing phase, and rocking the baby close to her...while the male plays the part of provider. The fact that situations have changed nowadays, doesn't mean that biologically speaking, mothers aren't the nurturing, protective parents they ought to be. Anyway, this link is particularly interesting.

As far as being able to prove everything by professional magazines etc, for the most part, you can find respected and capable professionals on both sides of the issue, as is the case with most things. Like fable already said, there are several members here who are in the field and know much more than I do about hits, and will likely show up and make me look bad as well

I'm interested in hearing all sides. While I have strong opinions, I'm someone who can change my mind about things. Just don't tell anybody.

[QUOTE=Xandax]I don't question the fact that there are biological differences between the males and females.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's good to know.

[QUOTE=VonDondu]Well, that's good to know. [/QUOTE]

Nice and constructive comment (or not?)

How about we use the primitive societies of today, like the Indian tribes here in Brazil, for example? Even before they became connected to modern societies, they were still male-dominated, and the males would do the hunting and all that, while the females stayed at home with the children. Is this cultural conditioning? Perhaps. But even in different tribes isolated from the rest of the world, the same results could be seen. Male dominance.

Not so. Anthropologists have discovered a relatively even spread of matriarchal, matrilineal (sometimes with authority passing from the mother/leader in an extended familial set to her brother, if no sister is available), patrilineal and patriarchal cultures. Males are often involved as warriors, but they are most certainly *not* dominant in the culture, nor do they exhibit any greater violence within the tribe, or any greater representation in the role of chiefs or council of chiefs. The women are responsible for child-bearing, but in some south Indian "primitive" communities child-rearing passes to the males, while the female act as warriors. In all cases, the women are trained alongside the men in methods of attack and defense. Women just as often lead and control the tribes, aggressively secure mates, challenge one another for primacy in given areas, etc. What's the source for your information that so-called primitive tribes exclusively show male dominance? This wasn't even the conclusion 130 years ago and more, when Victorian Period anthropologists like Mueller and others made their pioneering studies-on-site.

[QUOTE=Lost One]
However, in no way do I believe women will become as physically aggressive as males. They do not have the bodies for it, like we do. I once skirmished with an older girl when I was a child, and I accidentally punched her breast. It hurt her, even though it was a weak punch. A woman's breasts is sensitive and inhibits her when fighting, and can inhibit other things (if they are particularly big) like running, jumping and other athletic things. And naturally, they also have a weaker build than men. [/QUOTE]

I suppose then that men playing many sports only wear jock straps for the sole purpose of appearing to be more greatly endowed than they actually are..

Heh DW kinda hit the nail on the head here, now i was in various martial arts for a good 4 years and i always treated females as an equaly dangerous opponent as any male and i did get beat by some, fair and square, and i am in no way shamed to admit a female was better then me.

Just because you dont see movie of Females doing Jackie Chan style movies on all the walls of video stores dosent mean that they cant and it dosent mean that they can fight.

I hate it when people classify genders, its wrong frankly, if a female cant fight it has nothing to do with their gender and if a male knows how to take care of a newborn child it has nothing to do with the fact that their girly men or who knows what.

We are different, but we are more similar then a lot of people think, or want to think because they dont want to insult themselves. So lets stop kidding ourselves here Males might be more agressive but we arent all like that, just like all females arent the stay at home moms who are afraid of doing work.

Statistics can be used to prove that pigs are green and girafes live underwater, therefore i wont even bother to check them, not because im ignorant, but because i know that genders are different, but i will not accept anyone giving anyone crap because of their gender.

This isnt a game, your not a character gender isnt a thing you check male or female for before your born, remeber that, some of us where born male others where born female, i respect all others equaly in all areas regardless of gender, as long as they show me that respect in return.

We all have a soft spot and thats not always something related to anatomy. And i fail to see the point of this topic, frankly i find itvery ignorant.

[QUOTE=fable]Not so. Anthropologists have discovered a relatively even spread of matriarchal, matrilineal (sometimes with authority passing from the mother/leader in an extended familial set to her brother, if no sister is available), patrilineal and patriarchal cultures. Males are often involved as warriors, but they are most certainly *not* dominant in the culture, nor do they exhibit any greater violence within the tribe, or any greater representation in the role of chiefs or council of chiefs. The women are responsible for child-bearing, but in some south Indian "primitive" communities child-rearing passes to the males, while the female act as warriors. In all cases, the women are trained alongside the men in methods of attack and defense. Women just as often lead and control the tribes, aggressively secure mates, challenge one another for primacy in given areas, etc. What's the source for your information that so-called primitive tribes exclusively show male dominance? This wasn't even the conclusion 130 years ago and more, when Victorian Period anthropologists like Mueller and others made their pioneering studies-on-site.[/QUOTE]

Steven Goldberg, chairman of the Department of Sociology at New York's City College wrote a book entitled Why Men Rule which talks about how "Authority and leadership are... associated with the male in every society." Contemporary anthropologists reject views from earlier anthropologists such as Bachofen and Lewis Morgan that early societies were matriarchal.

Here is a quote from a text by Columbia University:

"Claims for the existence of matriarchy rest on three types of data: societies in which women make the major contribution to subsistence, societies in which descent is traced through women (i.e., matrilineal), and myths of ancient rule by women. But myths of ancient female dominance invariably highlight women's failure as rulers and end with men assuming power."

Rather, what is mostly suggested, is that there have been and exist matrilineal societies (with kinship and sometimes property following the mother's line). Matriarchal is where women run things, and there is little evidence for this, as most sources show.

Here's a quote from Goldberg, which is the reason he gives for men being more dominant:

"Males are . . . more willing to endure pain, frustration, and the like, to learn what they must and do what they must for . . . dominance, while females... are more willing to endure such pain, frustration, and the like for familial reasons, for children, for love . . . but not so much for dominance."

On regards to his earlier work, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, Margaret Mead (a female anthropologist) said that ""It is true . . . that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense We have no reason to believe that they ever existed... men everywhere have been in charge of running the show .. men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home."

The risk, however, lies in saying that men are dominant by nature, which could lead to the abuse of women once more. But if males seek dominance & power more naturally than women (perhaps due to the boost of testosterone at birth), than is it wrong to say this?

I've read it, and a couple of other books by Goldberg. It is a presentation of a theory, not an accepted fact within the anthropological community. I found Goldberg amusing, witty, and very logical in his puncturing of the matriarchal-only theory followed by people like Mead; in fact, I've quoted him in that capacity, before, to my co-religionists who accept the matriarchalists at face value. But Goldberg is a lot less convincing on his own ground, making a positive instead of a negative case. His arguments have the air of tautology; such-and-such is a brilliant female chess player at an early age, but it's to be expected, because girls peak earlier in their conceptual skills than boys, so she'll be easy to beat later on, and can be discounted by what Goldberg says will happen. Yeah, right. This is all too true an example of Goldberg: he will apply a piece of logic inappropriately, and with breathtaking generality to all instances, making himself look more than faintly ridiculous.

The risk, however, lies in saying that men are dominant by nature, which could lead to the abuse of women once more. But if males seek dominance & power more naturally than women (perhaps due to the boost of testosterone at birth), than is it wrong to say this?

While it's good to hear Mead recant some of her slipshod, earlier research, the responses you give of hers are the remarks she uttered long after her active career had concluded. She didn't know current field studies, and frankly is a bad example to draw from, either for or against any argument (as Goldberg himself showed through a brilliant review of her spotty work). She was unaware, for example, of Schoolcraft's early study into the Iroquois, or the later one by Morgan. Nor do I find Goldberg's response on the subject of the Iroqois coinvincing; comparing their matriarchy to the "one woman=one vote" modern US system is ridiculously superficial.

But this is going to veer into all sorts of detail, where you're quoting Goldberg, and I'm quoting Goldberg, his predecessors and critics. Unless you want to drown in that hole, I'll just repeat that I think Goldberg is a great antidote to the "Feminazi" approach to anthropology, but definitely not proof of any "masculinist" approach to history. Fun to read, but not tenable as a positive statement.

But this is going to veer into all sorts of detail, where you're quoting Goldberg, and I'm quoting Goldberg, his predecessors and critics. Unless you want to drown in that hole, I'll just repeat that I think Goldberg is a great antidote to the "Feminazi" approach to anthropology, but definitely not proof of any "masculinist" approach to history. Fun to read, but not tenable as a positive statement.

I'm sure I can find authors beyond Goldberg to support my case. So, I don't think I'll be drowning into any hole. However, I do not have any books on anthropology with me at home, so I had to rely on internet sources. I'll be at my local university this week though, having classes, so I might take some time in the library or even ask people from the department of Sociology.

As I've said before, I'm very willing to discuss this here, as it is something that interests me, and reading material is food for the brain.

However, Fable, while you certainly enjoy picking holes in my arguments, you do not present a counter-argument yourself. That is, you have not targetted the central theme of my argument, which is that men & women are different not only physically but mentally, which is not just as the result of cultural conditioning, but of physiological (or biological) differences.

[QUOTE=Lost One]However, Fable, while you certainly enjoy picking holes in my arguments, you do not present a counter-argument yourself. That is, you have not targetted the central theme of my argument, which is that men & women are different not only physically but mentally, which is not just as the result of cultural conditioning, but of physiological (or biological) differences.[/QUOTE]

I don't enjoy picking holes in anything you've written, nor can I see where my responses indicated that. Your statements are, with respect, a strike at my life style, and (in a real sense) my belief system, which is duality-based Craft, God and Goddess worship. There's no pleasure by me in my remarks, here, but there's also nothing to be gained by shouting and ugliness. You will believe what you will believe, as will I. My comments in any case were aimed at Goldberg, not you, and the logical fallacies are his, not yours. (And as I pointed out, I agree with his assessment of the feminist anthropological arguments.)

In so far as research has shown no mental differences between the genders, I'll leave that to C Elegans. She's got the professional credentials and the links to back her statements up. Hopefully, she'll show up at some point soon.

My point was that, while you argued the validity of my sources and certain over-zealous statements or theories of mine (which is all fine and dandy) you had been avoiding the central argument of what it is that we had been discussing. I did not mean it to be a strike on your lifestyle, if you perceived it as such.

As for:

In so far as research has shown no mental differences between the genders, I'll leave that to C Elegans. She's got the professional credentials and the links to back her statements up. Hopefully, she'll show up at some point soon.

There are very solid, scientific facts to prove that there are mental differences between the genders. Check out the first 3 links of my 1st post in this thread.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Nice and constructive comment (or not?)[/QUOTE]
Um, I guess you could say I was just trying to give you some attention.

On a serious note, I think it's pretty obvious that men and women have biological differences. The question is, how different from each other are men and women as a result of those biological differences? Along those lines, I don't have much to add to what has already been written in this message thread (I have read all of the messages), except to say that there are exceptions to every generalization about the sexes. I'm not a "typical" woman. Fable is not a "typical" man. In fact, out of all of the people that I can say I know well, none of them are what I would call "typical" examples of their gender. Generalizations are useful for understanding basic human characteristics, and I suppose they might apply to large groups of people; but I don't think that generalizations will enable us to understand any particular individual. I think that's just the nature of the social sciences.

[QUOTE=Lost One]However, in no way do I believe women will become as physically aggressive as males. They do not have the bodies for it, like we do. I once skirmished with an older girl when I was a child, and I accidentally punched her breast. It hurt her, even though it was a weak punch. A woman's breasts is sensitive and inhibits her when fighting, and can inhibit other things (if they are particularly big) like running, jumping and other athletic things. And naturally, they also have a weaker build than men. )[/QUOTE]

Your average male may have more muscle mass than the average female, but as we noted in the military, one doesn't need to be superman to get the job done. And while it may painful to be struck in the breasts, it's nowhere as disabling as a hit to the male groin, nor is it more painful than being struck in the face. In fact, a mother had better develop a certain amount of toughness if she wants to nurse. I have yet to meet a female who was inhibited from physical activity by her breasts.