I dont believe women in the U.S. are repressed. If one looks at all the countries of the world today, there are few countries which treat its women better than the U.S. or European countries.
Also, most women tend to be more naturally submissive. Its hardwired into mens brains to protect women.
In reverse order, here are a few quite debatable–if not utterly dubious–statements I’ve so far read on this thread.
GENE STONER “Also, most women tend to be more naturally submissive. Its hardwired into mens brains to protect women.”
Even if it’s true that “most” women are “more submissive,” (whatever precisely that might mean) why conclude that this is a question of nature and hardwiring?
Gaspode: “Almost Anyone in a heterosexual relationship will confirm that the use of sex as a coercive tool is primarily a female privilege.”
I somehow doubt that. Straight female Dopers, please comment. Do you or do you not a) “use sex as a coercive tool” and b) consider such use your privilege as a female? Speaking purely for myself, I have never used sex as a means of coercion. (I have also, btw, known many women who have more interest in sex than their male partner.)
denthardurt “As for subjugation, I see few modern societies which actively subjugate women.”
grienspace “All my years of experience have led me to believe that the “subjugation” of women is largely a myth.”
I think to make these statements meaningful you’d have to define what you mean by “subjugation,” wouldn’t you?
gaspode “2)Men have one major responsibility which until very recently women were essentially unable unable to fulfill. That responsibility has been to lay down their lives for their society in times of war and even today women have a limited capacity to fulfil this function. With or without choice men are ordered to die to defend their societies.”
So are you implying that women’s readiness to die in battle (not to mention as firefighters, police officers, etc.) will win them greater socio-economic and political equality? If so, are you predicting that as more women express readiness for this they will automatically achieve equality with men?
“I suspect that a large part of the reason women have been left out of the governmental process is that they are percieved as having no personal stake in this ultimate political tactic.”
If you’re talking about war that’s absurd. Historically women have sometimes fought beside men; and even when they didn’t they were always in a position to be enslaved, killed or raped in the event of war.
Also, I find it odd that it one part of your post you insist that women aren’t subjugated, while now you’re attempted to find historical explanations for why they are. Which is it?
“There is also a perception that if you’re going to be asked to shoulder a responsibility like that then there has to be some additional rights that go along with it.”
Well then women in a traditional society might have easily argued that they deserved political rights since they were asked to shoulder the responsibility for childcare and homecare. (I’m not of course suggesting that such arguments would have been heeded; I’m simply suggesting that your logic is selective and doesn’t hold up.)
tracer “In species where the males tend to be much larger than the females, we usually see “alpha male” behavior – one male, the biggest and strongest, gets exclusive mating access to all the females in his tribe. He is called the Alpha Male. Gorillas and Elephant Seals are examples of this. The average adult male gorilla weighs twice as much as the average adult female gorilla, but only the biggest male gorilla (or the one that wins all the fights…”[etc.]
There are other SDSM posters better qualified than I to speak to the dubiousness of evolutionary pscyhology. I’ll just limit myself to one obvious point. You and I are not gorillas. We are speaking, producing, inventing, imaginative animals, and our psychologies are far more complex than any reductive analogy to primates can possibly account for. For that matter, we are not primitive humans either. Physical strength is nowhere near the most important factor in determining our social (and sexual) success. (Proviso: there may be an exception to this rule if you are running for governor in the state of Minnesota.)
biggirl, before I cite you I just want to say that I totally agreed with and enjoyed reading the bulk of yoru posts. But here is a point of disagreement:
“And the truth is women are dependent because of our biology. As long as we bear the children, we need the support of society as a whole to insure our children’s (and our own) survival.”
I think you’re drawing lines in the sand here. All people require the support of society for their survival, and men, whether they acknowledge it or not, are as invested in the survival of children as women. You seem to assume that because women give birth to children, and because children need protection, that women (rather than children) need protection. In actuality women don’t need any more protection than men need; and all men and women began as children–in need of protection.
sub-ju-gate
tr.v. sub-ju-gat-ed, sub-ju-gat-ing, sub-ju-gates
- To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
- To make subservient; enslave.
sub-ser-vi-ent (sb-sûrv-nt)
adj.
- Subordinate in capacity or function.
- Obsequious; servile.
- Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end.
As I said, I see few modern societies which actively subjugate women.
Obviously, throughout the course of history there have been groups who have subjugated women.
I don’t deny that fact, I merely state that in most modern societies, any “subjugation” of women is not an active practice(ie the Taliban Regime) but rather a passive result of those in power wishing to remain so(ie the glass ceiling).
Since we are talking about some of the historical reasons that men have had control, I’d like to point out that as recently as the second half of this century, in many states a man could not be put on trial for raping his wife. That crime didn’t exist, because consent was considered part of marriage. At various points in history, men have had access to sex on demand, particularly when insured by a marriage contract.
I’m not sure if this is what Biggirl meant, but a woman who is 8 months pregnant may need some more protection than the average person. Back in ancient times, this might mean protection from the rabid mammoth storming the camp, and now, it means maternity leave and medical care. In an extreme scenario, where all men and women have equal obligations to fight in the armed forces, the pregnant woman is going to be exempt. But I do agree with you that the reason she is exempt is because everyone in society, both men and women, are invested in survival of children.
And this site http://www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet/mrape.htm
provides a brief history of rape within marriage.
Pertaining to the religious aspect of this debate, I have always learned that many of the older polytheistic religions had given gender to their gods. The earth goddess usually portraying characteristics of a creator was female in most cases. In order to distinguish themselves and prove that these older religions were wrong they gave god more manly characteristics and gave women minimal positions within the religious communities. That is what I learned way back when.
Lost In Reality
Not Having A Quote Since 1985
This may come as a surpise to the nonthinking among us, but married women are at less of a risk of physical violence than either single women or women with boyfriends.
Mandelstam,
I’m actually not implying anything. I’m simply stating the fact that men have traditionally held a very serious responsibility that women could not effectively bear. I’m surmising that if someone in a primitive society is goimg to die as the result of someone elses decisions, he’s going to want such decisions made by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of those decisions and ideally someone who will suffer as much as he.
As for whether women will achieve equality with men if they are ever able to participate as equals on the battlefield I don’t know. It’s highly speculative that this will ever happen. There are physiological reasons why women are still unsuited for many of the more dangerous combat posts, and I doubt any society will conscript women for frontline posts. You’ll note that what I was discussing was an obligatory responsibility to die in war. Not simply a desire or willingness to do so, so conscription for military duty is necessary to achieve equality in this sense. Added to this there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how much we may desire it, so if you want me to give this any more detailed an answer you’ll have to define equality, since true equality IMHO is impossible no matter what.
Yes, you know that and I know that, but if you read what I actually wrote you will note that I said women were 'percieved as having no personal stake". That’s been the perception as far as i can gather from historical writings. Of course it’s BS, if for no other reason than that seeing your son or husband killed is pretty damn personal, but that doesn’t render the perception any less real.
Well having re-read the post I’ll be blowed if I can find where I said that/ Are you sure you’r not confusing me with someone else? Could you quote the bit where I said this?
You really need to look carefully for that word ‘perception’. Something can easily be percieved to be so without being logically surportable. People percieve that there is a God and that the Earth is flat, doesn’t mean it has to be logical. Perceptions are like that. In an ideal world maybe they wouldn’t be, but in this one to suggest that if something doesn’t hold up logically then it can’t have ever been percieved as having been so is extremely naive.
Delphica,
I’m well aware of the various rape-in-marriage laws etc. This doesn’t change the question, in fact it reinforces it. If a man in a marriage has access to sex on demand then there is absolutely no way of useing the witholding of sex as a coercive tool on that man, which is what I assume Ahunter was trying to imply. It seems to be an all or none response: if a man is married, or if rape is legal he has unlimited access to sex so it can’t be used as a subjugation method against his unwilling partner any more than any other form of assault. It’s not sex that is the coercive factor, it is the threat of violence, which could take any number of forms. If he’s unmarried or rape is legal then control of sexual favours seems more likely to empower women.
I’m kinda lost regarding your statements here, Gaspode. How is the threat of violence by a man to obtain sex from an unwilling partner empowering to women?
Typo. That should have read "If he’s unmarried or rape is illegal then control of sexual favours seems more likely to empower women.
Make more sense now?
grienspace wrote:
This is primarily because of the way lions hunt. They sneak up on their prey in the tall savannah grass. Male lions, with that big, gaudy mane of theirs, are too big to sneak up on anything. Thus, the females are stuck doing all the hunting.
But that big, shaggy mane, and the male lion’s roar, and its larger body size relative to the female, serve the exact same function that such differences do in gorillas and elephant seals: they scare off other males which might otherwise get mating access to “their” females. Although the males don’t hunt, there is still an “alpha male” in every pride.
The upright stance of humans means that neither males nor females would have been able to hunt by sneaking up on their prey in the tall savannah grass. Instead, they have to hunt by getting as close as they can to their prey without scaring it off, and then throwing things at it – rocks, in the old days, and spears when we got around to inventing spears. This mode of hunting would have favored strength over stealth, and so would have been more within the realm of the larger, stronger males.
Women bear the brunt of childrearing in our society and in almost all societies. We must carry them for nine months. From the days of the hunter-gatherer until this very moment, this puts women in the position dependence on men and society. This is not because women are weaker, it is just the way our mammalian biolgy works.
After women give birth, they are, by and large, responsible for the upbringing of the young. It doesn’t have to be this way but it is. As long as men have only a secondary role in the raising of our children, then the burden falls directly onto the shoulders of women. It is still this way even in the most “modern” of our societies.
This fighting wars thing is just the codification of women’s percieved weakness. If asked or allowed, women could have --and often did when given the chance-- fight in wars. Women were never allowed to do so. This was a responsiblity that men chose to shoulder on their own. It’s disingenuous to say men laid claim to control because they fought in wars when men were the ones who insisted that women couldn’t fight wars.
Mr. Stoner, I would like to know what makes you believe women are “hardwired to be more submissive”. I think that you are confusing “not as aggressive” with “more submissive”. Not the same thing at all.
Is it just me, or is there a contradiction in the above?
In many of the ancient Celtic tribes, it was customary for a woman who was married to a warrior to fight alongside (or more accurately, back-to-back with) her husband. Both nude, both frequently smeared with woad. Must have been quite a sight. The Romans were said to have a motto that covered this situation: “If you meet a Celtic warrior, you’re in trouble; if you meet his wife, you’re dead.” (Extremely loose translation.)
But even here, the woman had an additional duty: if the tribe were defeated, she was supposed to return home and kill her children–since they believed in reincarnation, it was considered better to let them come back again than to condemn them to a life of slavery.
Biggirl and others: We need to make a serious distinction here between historical arguments (why women in ancient societies were subjugated, oppressed, or what have you), and the the kinds of factors that continue to leave women at a serious socio-economic advantage today. Yes, historically, women’s biological child-bearing function naturalized their subservient role. But the medical and social conditions surrounding childbirth and childcare have changed dramatically since that time. So we have to be careful not to naturalize existing inequalities based on reproductive differences that no longer need add up to much.
Hence, Delphica though s/he makes total sense on a lot of points could use, IMO, some additional thinking when s/he writes: “I’m not sure if this is what Biggirl meant, but a woman who is 8 months pregnant may need some more protection than the average person.”
To be sure, she may (though the last time I was eight months pregant I was so frantically preparing for the big day while moving house that I’ve never gotten more accomplished in my entire life). On the other hand, a man recovering from dental surgery, or a man with a serious heart condition, or a man past his physical prime probably needs as much or more special “protection” as a pregnant woman. Yet we wouldn’t justify sexual inequality on these grounds nor expect men with manageable heart conditions to take a socio-economic backseat to men without them. For that matter, many women never have children; and many professional women who do have children are no more encumbered for the bearing and raising of these children than their male counterparts. Again, my point is simply that these cliches about anatomy determining destiny are way out of date. Women and men are so much more than their respective reproductive functions. These cliches simply don’t hold up to scrutiny in our times.
denhart, Thank you for your definition of “subjection.” It helps to know precisely what’s being discussed. Yes, to “subject” women in these terms in (for argument’s sake) the US today would be simply illegal. That said, the OP asked us about “repression.” Biggirl took Hairy to mean "oppression" (another word that could use defining) and perhaps he did. But though he may not have meant it in quite this way, I think the term “repression” actually does describe well the way in which women are shaped by the inequalities that remain in our society. That is, they are encouraged and often coerced into conforming to double standards; and they are repeatedly told that “nature” intends them possess the feminine qualities that justify the double standard. (What precisely those qualities are can depend but a host of them are on display in this thread: less sexual, more submissive, more dependent, more emotional, etc.) IMO these groundless stereotypes and dubious evolutionary arguments distort the reality of our times: to wit, there is no biological reason why women today–on average–cannot enjoy full socio-economic and political equality with men.
Gaspode on dying in battle etc.: “I’m simply stating the fact that men have traditionally held a very serious responsibility that women could not effectively bear.”
Yes, indeed. And women have held a very serious responsibility (child-bearing) that no man on earth has ever been able to pull off. So your logic doesn’t hold up. You are trying to trace an effect (men’s historical social, economic and political advantages) to a single cause (their historical responsibility for defending the realm). And I’m simply trying to show you that that justification is so selective and outdated that anyone who raises the point should himself be able to acknowledge its present-day irrelevancies.
Let me put it to you this way: in feudal times the warrior class justified their elite status in precisely these terms; peasants didn’t bear arms and die in battle, warriors did. Modern battle (since, say, the 18th) century is conducted on a mass scale and coincides with demands for democracy for, at least, adult males. So so far your reasoning holds up. But it doesn’t follow that decades after the last military draft, with a volunteer army that includes women, with weapons that make physical strength an irrelevant detail, and with the last war having included women in active service, that defense of the realm should continue to be any kind of justification for inequality between the sexes. In other words, according to the logic of your own argument, sexual inequality is no longer justified since women are now able and willing to help defend the realm.
Gaspode continues: “Added to this there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how
much we may desire it, so if you want me to give this any more detailed an answer you’ll have to define equality,
since true equality IMHO is impossible no matter what.”
This is exactly the language that has always been used to justify inequalities. “Peasants lack the rational capacities govern themselves.” “Natives are racially inferior and need to be ruled by civilized foreigners.” “Slaves are naturally inferior to their masters.” I can show you hundreds of examples of medical authorities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries “proving” that women were intellectually unfit to be lawyers and doctors. Now the same proposition would be considered absurd.
Think about it Gaspode: what are these “numerous reasons” why men and women will “never” be equal? So far as I can tell, the basic differences are these: 1)reproductive organs; 2) reproductive function; 3) certain concomitant hormonal differences that may–and I emphasize may–stem directly from the former, or may be exacerbated by socialization itself. To move from the abstract to the concrete where, Gaspode, do you and I reflect the “numerous reasons” why sexual inequality must always persist? I’m willing to bet that differences in upbringing (including class, education, professional training etc.) count for a great deal more in determining who we are than does the single fact of your having testacles and my having a uterus and ovaries. Indeed, depending on your age and other factors, I might make as good or better a soldier than you do whether (as the case may be) a rank-and-file soldier following orders, or an officer to giving them.
As to the definition of equality, I agree it is complex and arguable. But I’ll settle (in countries such as the US) for relative socio-economic equality, and the political authority that comes with it. And, as far as this thread goes, I’ll settle for people being judged on their individual merits without the careless tossing around of evolutionary fallacies, pseudo-historical historical assertions, and sloppy assumptions about the presentday.
First off, this female doper does not and has never used sex to manipulate. Such a suggestion is offensive. Sometimes, much to my husbands disappointment, I’m “not in the mood,” but its not because I want flowers or jewelery or him to treat me differently. And I’ve been in relationships where my interest in sex was greater than his.
Secondly, the perception that women have lesser sex drives than men is very common in our culture. It is not necessarily true of all cultures, or of all points in our history. FGM is practiced in part to keep the wicked and uncontrollable sexual urges of women in check. Our own Eve and Lilith point to a version of women who tempt and are less than chaste.
My personal favorite theory is that you know who mom is, but dad is a matter of speculation. To reduce the level of speculation, keep your women under control. This has been taken to extremes not seen in the West in the Middle East and Far East, where women have been functionally imprisioned, but is seldom seen in the modern West (although not unknown, I’ve known more than one women who is almost always in the company of her husband or other women - and risk physical abuse if seen unchaperoned with a man that is not her husband, father or brother).
As others have stated, women in general have a great deal of power by the control of sex. A man can easily be reduced to a blubbering idiot by a woman.
As in the animal kingdom in many cases although it is the male who shows the proactive aggressive behavior in search of sex, it is the female who signals and chooses who when and where.
Men in our advanced society free of legal and social constraints on women are well aware that we’ve gotten signals from members of the opposite sex initiating the relationships that we have successfully “conquered”
Now if the most powerfull male in society was always preferred by females, and if the females were willing to share him, then history might not have required the subjugation of women. However harmony requires law and order, and the heirarchy of protectors(males) require perks bestowed by the alpha male (governing authority/dominant religion) guaranteeing sexual access regardless of attractiveness.
Now some people may point to the phenomenon of rape. This involves a very small percentage of men who clearly have limited access, either by lack of attractiveness or by lack of cultural support. If one excludes marital rape, I would suggest the incidence of rape (sexual assault) has climbed markedly in western society, and I suspect non-existant in Afghanistan.
An excellent example of a woman in control is Dangerosa. Her husband it appears feels he must bring flowers or jewelery or change his technique to please her and gain more access. Sooner or later he will realize as Dangerosa has pointed out that she just has less interest in him sexually, and that he can’t do anything about it.
The fact that other men have been more attractive to her can only be destabilizing to the relationship.This no doubt is very common in marital relationships and most likely one of the reasons why society has placed controls like marriage vows either civilly or through religion to stabilize relationships and hence stabilize society.
One could argue that the condition of women have changed dramatically too, at the same time…
Yes. But if you analyze this argument from an historical point of view, not only the women could be in the same situation than the men (heart condition, old age,etc…), but also they often were pregnant during most of their adult live, bringing baby after baby, most of them not surviving past childhood. They weren’t pregnant only once or twice in a long life, like now.
Yes, indeed, it’s out of date. But an explaination based on out of date situations can still be valid. Habbits and customs are deeply rooted, and don’t change over the night when their cause dissapear, especially since the actual cause is usually unknown by the people who follow the custom (being replaced by something like : “God said it should be so”). The original question was : why are they repressed, not should they be repressed.
Well…I’ve some (very limited, I must admit) interest in the celtic world and history, and I never heard of such a custom. Do you have some source?
Concerning the “killing baby” thing,it makes some sense, and possibly it happened occasionnally, but I never read that this conduct was expected from women (or whoever else). Also, given the deep lack of knowledge we had about the religion and customs of celts, I bet that no one could seriously give such a definitive explanation “because they believed in reincarnation, etc…” for such a custom (assuming that it actually existed)
Please note that I know that it’s very likely that celts believed in some form of reincarnation. But stating “they did so because they believed in reincarnation” is a huge step, and would require some historical evidences of a relationship between the alleged custom and the supposed belief. Otherwise, a future historian, after a nuclear holocaust which has destroyed all documents could say as well : “americans launched the nuclear race because they believed in god and in an afterlife, so they weren’t afraid of a war”
My particular interest is in why women are still repressed today. An obvious answer is, because those in power are reluctant to yield power to others; however, it seems ludicrous to shun an alliance with capable individuals based on gender. It may have made perfect sense to delegate power to the physically strongest in times past, but our modern society provides a tremendous number of opportunities for which gener has absolutely no relevance. Why, in spite of this change, women continue to experience lower compensation for comparable work, and substantially fewer professional opportunities? How much of the problem is due to men clinging to past customs, as opposed to women doing the same?
Politics appears to be dominated by aggresive individuals capable of allying themselves with sources of money and power to achieve their objectives. Does such an environment place women at a disadvantage?
As is the case with any thread, the topic will shift with the postings, and many interesting and frustrating viewpoints will be presented. I am only inserting my comments here to express what I, personally, was looking for in starting this thread.
Gaspode:
Excellent question!
OK, if you can see how the patriarchal arrangement didn’t precisely empower ALL men (even if they may have ended up with more freedom than women tended to have), perhaps you’ll agree that, during the process of getting into this arrangement (whatever the specifics of that may have been), it may have appeared as a mixed bag to the women rather than them agreeing “OK, sure, we’ll let the boys run things and have power over us”. Therefore female participation in and consent to at least the initial circumstances of the arrangement.
I would imagine (and I believe anthropological studies tend to support this) that in hunter-gatherer economies women who are pregnant and have several children are nowhere near as handicapped when it comes to them continuing to be able to obtain the necessaries. As I said above, concerning the transition to agriculture, you’re talking about a massive increase in the amount of labor per person. Food is tight so people don’t just feed kids (or other people), you’re expected to take care of yourself and your own. The proposition to women was not merely “We want to control the young men so we’re gonna control chicks and give the guys access to you only if they bust their butts working in the fields” – as you so rightly ask, why would the women go along with that?
Instead, I think the proposition to women was “Hey, things are different now; when you get pregnant and/or have a bunch of children to feed and take care of, it’s really hard to handle that on your own. So…here’s the deal, chicks–don’t put out until a guy who is demonstratedly capable of doing enough labor in the fields to feed himself AND you AND any kids y’all might have declares in front of the Old Patriarch that he’ll do exactly that. Then, once one of them does, he’s supposed to share the food with you. It’s no more unfair to him than it is to you. Deal?”