GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=winter rose]Now how shall I start this off. I suppose this is more of a poll than anything else, but it would be interesting if you people could expand on your ideas.

How many of you believe that it is your job to defend your significant other.Of course dont just go by the title - the females here can save the guy in distress too.

I guess however, that men believe more than we women do- (generalization I know) that they have to do everything in their power to protect or defend their female other halfs. Exactly where do you all stand in this? Of course I think that women should also be able to not just stand by their men, but they should also do their part in defending if the guy is insulted/attacked/abused.[/QUOTE]I believe it's my job to defend my very significant self.


D)

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I think there is evidence of men protecting women in other cultures, but maybe it is just men dominating women. In the Far East, Africa, and Europe women had significantly fewer human rights for most of history. Your suggestion that protection is a Victorian addition is a very intriguing idea that I had never considered. But what about midieval poetry and literature that depicts knights protecting damsels, etc.?[/quote]

First, it wasn't medieval. It was part of the early Renaissance, and largely limited to the lower third of France (with bits of Northern Italy thrown in), a culturally distinct area often referred to at the time as Occitania. Its influence was largely aesthetic. Second, it never involved protecting women. The code of chivalry (a good book on this is Maurice Keen's Chivalry, available from Yale University Press) was one thing in reality, an entirely different one in the heightened poetry of the period. Launcelot du Lac may have protected high-class women he encountered from evil assaults upon their maidenhood, but he never found a single lowerclass field worker or merchant's daughter to protect; and he was always fighting ogres, giants, semi-invulnerable knights gifted with magical protection, etc. In short, it was fantasy entertainment for an aristocratic audience.

Modern scholarship has determined that in real life, the knights of the period held passionate affairs with the ladies whose chastity they were swearing to protect in public. And the women of the period, far from needing protection, where often among the most powerful nobility. This bothered the RCC, and may have helped throw a bit of weight into the decision to invade and destroy Occitania (though that was largely a result of the Provencal mulishness and the Albigensian "heresy"). So, no protection of women necessary or accomplished, there.

My questions stem from a basic belief that men and women are, due to their biology, different. In the past, these difference have been exploited to keep women from being equal with men, socially speaking. I don't think the sexes should be differentiated socially. However, if men and women are different, doesn't this mean that there may be things that men are inclined to and women are not, and vice versa?

The biological differences are obvious but minor, when taken as a whole in viewing the entire human organism. Social differentiation is a far, far greater factor. Now, what exactly do you mean by "things men or women are inclined to do?" Be specific. If you mean gestate young, then you're not discussing an inclination, but a biological difference. On the other hand, if you mean sports, then take a look at the way schools and early socialization in various cultures teaches sexual polarization on this.

Replies to replies

Re: mostly to Fable, also CE

I don't really want to hijack this forum anymore than it already has been (sorry WR). The original question regarded protection of significant others, and in my mind I made the connection between the social instinct of men to protect women and the historical empowerment of men over women. In many cultures across the globe men have had more power/right than women. This has sometimes been justified as the necessity of men to protect women. For example, historical Europe, North America (post-colonial "white" America), sub-saharan Africa (pre-colonial "black" tribal Africa), northern Africa/the Middle East, Central Asia, and cultures in the Far East have all limited the rights of women (voting, property ownership, full citizenship, etc.) This widespread nature is why I mentioned the situation may not be solely cultural.

I am aware that this is in stark contrast to a few other cultures historically- however, North American (pre-colonial "Native American" America) and possible a few other exceptions (Female dominated/Amazonial cultures?) are the only that I can think of off hand that fit this exception. I personally don't know about this in the depth that is necessary to do anything other than I have already done- observe, generalize, and ask questions. It is entirely possible (maybe even probable) that the dominance of women was recorded in pseudo-history as the "protection" of women.

However, all this doesn't change what a few basic truths that I have observed (please respond if you take issue with them)-
(a)men and women are biologically different
(b)men and women are (ideally) socially the same
(c)men and women are born with essentially identical potential, and yet everywhere women and men follow very general but significant gender roles.

I can't explain any of it authoritatively. I do think that social factors have much greater influence than biological factors (nurture > nature). However, I agree with CE in saying that the interesting question is, to what extent do biological differences effect men and women?

I don't think getting more specific will help further this discussion along. The observations shouldn't be simplified down to the straw man of sports and making babies- general observations are full of exceptions (that is why they are general, not universal). What I am interested in is why men feel like they have to protect women, and why women have had fewer rights historically than men.