Why are women repressed?

Great Debates
41

**grienspace **: “As others have stated, women in general have a great deal of power by the control of sex.”

Grienspace, this is total nonsense. In what sense do I, as a woman, “control” sex. If I have the hots for my next door neighbor can I order him to fulfill my wishes on the spot? Better still, will Antonio Banderas be delivered into my living room right now so I can assert some of my vast sexual control over men right now?

“A man can easily be reduced to a blubbering idiot by a woman.”

This cuts both ways. Haven’t you ever seen a woman making a fool out of herself b/c she’s infatuated by a particular man? Yeesh, grienspace, if I didn’t know better I’d think you’d never met a woman in your life.

“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.”

I think you need to forget about the animal kingdom for a minute and inhabit human society. If I go to a singles bar, I can “signal” all I want but if the man’s not interested he’s not going to be told when and where. Perhaps you forget that the basic sexual act requires an erection on the man’s part. You could call that erection part of the way that he “chooses when and where.” What’s amazing to me is how little you seem to have ever considered what heterosexual relations are like from a woman’s point of view. Believe it or not, we’re often attracted to a particular guy; and, when we are, we pursue him if we’ve got the chance. We don’t wait around for some other guy’s “proactivity.”

[deletions] "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."

Oh, I get it. So the reason that all of the women in the world aren’t panting for George Bush and Bill Gates is that these crafty alphas have realized its in their best interests to parcel us gals out to less “attractive” men. Gee, and I thought that I chose my husband b/c he was way smarter than George and looks a whole lot better in his skivvies than Bill. Thanks for straightening me out on that one grien.

[deletions]“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.”

Yeesh, grienspace. Dangerosa can clearly take care of herself but you’ve entirely misread her post.

She specifically said that when she’s not in the mood she’s just not in the mood; she’s not seeking to manipulate her husband in some way. And she specifically said that she’s been in relationships where she was more in the mood than the guy. (So have I and many others I know.)

You and Gaspode seem obsessed with the idea that women experience less sexual desire than men. As I can only assume that you’re extrapolating from your own personal experiences, you have my sympathies. But, unlucky though you may be, that doesn’t mean that you’re right.

It’s a fact that before the age of mass democracies, women were often described as being more lustful than men (viz. Eve). And medical authorities in these pre-modern times believed that women had to have orgasms in order to conceive. (Read Thomas Laqueur on this subject). Beliefs about sexuality, in other words, are relative to the times. Sadly, you two and some others seemed to have missed out on some of the best news feminist awareness had in store for you! Women actually like sex, guys, and it’s not because we want you to foot the bill for out babies.

42

Hairy Potter:

The attitudes and the social institutions supported by them take time to change. This is, however, a world in the process of becoming post-patriarchal. (This is also relevant for those who seem to deny that women are repressed or oppressed–things look equitable to them in part because things have gotten so much better and because they don’t look at history when they look around. However, things haven’t finished changing, especially outside of the “western” world).

43

Men have small and fragile egos and it made them happy to try keep women down.

Also because women were not educated they were not seen as entitled to vote, women had little work opportunities and so on… it was mainly cultural. A selfish, sexist cultural idea that saw women as second class.

BUT

hey… its all different now… girls go out to work and get drunk in bars etc… women are free

You may as well ask ‘why were black people put in chains and denied the vote’.

44

I would say, it’s because they allow it. Did you notice that the moment a large minority of women stood up to stop allowing it, it kind of fell to the wayside? Originally we were a hunter gatherer society. The hunter’s, the men for physical reasons, probably determined migration patterns, because, (drumroll) they were the hunters. Therefore they became the leaders. I think most questions of this nature have pretty simple answers. Now that physical prowess has little to nothing to do with how you succeed in society, women have a much more prominent role. As women become more successful the salary differences will disappear as well. I have worked with a lot of women my own age who made more money than I did, my boss now is a woman, my boss at my last job was a woman and I have worked under women at many jobs.

Right now it’s just a legacy of good old boys clubs that kind of have a paternal tinge to them that still holds women down. It’s kind of like legacy software issues.

People’s behavior is determined by it’s will to survive and the way it sees best fit to do that, and roles were created because of who best fit the roles, as I illustrated earlier, the hunters determined migration patterns because they would come back and tell the village that the bison/mammoths/marmots/lemmings whatever were moving on and became de facto leaders because their word determined the migration. It also probably has to do with what attributes were looked upon as desirable and dominant, and when it was strength it was probably men who got the job.

Are women or men superior? I guess it depends on teh man and the woman you are talking about at the time.

Erek

45

:rolleyes:

I think that’s attributing the effect to the cause. Women were oppressed, which took the form, over time, of essentially barring them from “public” life: no ownership of property, no right to enter into contractual agreements, in essence no legal status except as the property of father or husband (much like children, in other words). As a subcategory of this, they did not receive the right to vote when men, in general, did; they were not allowed to attend educational institutions under the same circumstances or by any means as early in history as men could. In employment, they were in many cases barred from consideration altogether, in most other places could be paid less than men for equal or comparable labor, and at any rate did not until fairly recently have legal possession of their own salaries anyhow. (that which they earned was legally possessed by husband or father).

In most cases women did not have the right to choose where they would live. They could not legally speak in public. In many places and times they could not exist in public, period, unless accompanied by father brother or husband. They could not leave–in many times and places, they did not have the legal privilege of leaving a father even if of adult age, without his express permission, nor the right to leave a husband. Marriage required the father’s permission, not the woman’s permission, i.e., she could be married against her will. She could be beaten, physically, coerced, raped, and in some circumstances killed, legally, by her husband. In most cases she had no legal standing to seek redress against anything he did.

There are many women alive today who were born into a world in which American and British women could not vote. (Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Afghani women can only dream of voting today). There are probably a great many women on this board who can describe to you from personal experience what it was like to be unable to get credit in your own name simply because of being female; to be blatantly passed over for promotion or paid less for performing the same duties, told to their faces “You don’t get other than this because you ain’t a man with a family to support”; to be denied opportunities available to men on the FORMAL grounds that women weren’t allowed.

Not yet. Things are substantially different in most of the western nations, especially when it comes to formal discrimination, but attitudes and unofficial discrimination still exists. On the “results” side, the more even playing field has only started to have real effects, leaving men still in charge of most of the organizations that possess major decision-making authority and in charge of most of the money. Girls do go out to work (and still get paid a bit less for equal or comparable work, promoted less often, and treated differently for behaving the same way etc), they do go to bars afterwards and get drunk (and occasionally raped on the pinball machines by men who declare that this meant they were ‘asking for it’), and are becoming freer every day (despite the fervent attempts of well-financed conservative powers that would like to reverse this trend).

Not yet, but it is happening all around us.

46

Mandelstam wrote:

Not one that put out, anyway. :smiley:

<ducking and running>

47

Mandelstam, if your lust for your neighbour is serious, them I’m fairly certain you will succeed in seducing him. All it took for Lewinski, not exactly attractive looking, was to show her bare ass to the President of the United States, and she had him, nearly destroying the man and his career and plunging the nation into a political crisis that captured the attention of the entire world. Ever hear of a smart powerful woman risking her career for a man?
(the above statement in no way absolves Clinton)

For love perhaps, but not for sex. That in no way implies that a woman cannot be aggressively pursuing sex, but they don’t go silly over it and risk their futures for sex. Men also can go silly for love.

Mandelstam, please don’t be discouraged. Many men apparently have erectile difficulties when under the influence, a common occurence when dating and particularly singles bars. Any woman secure in her womanhood can certainly overcome that problem or enjoy alternatives to copulation. And apparently you must be subtle about your aggressiveness. I just watch a program on male porn stars and they all find Viagra indespensible to a good performance when under the gun or in this case the camera.

And that is my point exactly. Men who pursue women are wasting their time if they don’t get signals. In the end, it’s you who chooses.

Aw Man, may I call you Man? You are making my point exactly. It wasn’t anyone else making your choice for you was it? You are liberated aren’t you? I’m sure your husband is a bit of an alpha as well, and as you say good looking and a bit of a catch. Several hundred years ago you would be severely encouraged by your mother to marry someone who suggested upward mobility regardless of physical attractiveness or love. If your family was anywhere near the top of the heirarchy they would be pushing you up there with a coming out “Ball” featuring the top bachelors of the best families, all near the top of the local power structure.

Thankyou for clearing that up. I misread her statement as indicating she had more sexual desire for several other men than her husband, and I wasn’t impressed. Not the sort of thing a love partner would reveal to the world. Breach of trust and all. Sorry Dangerosa

Man, I fully believe women like sex, and can achieve orgasmic experiences far beyond those of the average man, but they don’t generally rape men, and don’t generally spend the day dreaming about getting laid or drooling over pornographic material of naked members of the opposite sex, masturbating three or four times a day while wondering how your classmate mannaged to get laid by the most beautiful cheerleader in the school who won’t even acknowledge you. I would have taken anything I could get back then. Any girl could get laid, but not any guy. Women are far more discriminating when it comes to sex and therin lies the control. Women don’t even have to deliberately excercise the control, its just there. Us married men have to make a conscientious effort to remember birthdays, anniversaries, say I love you and take out the garbage and put down the toilet seat, all the while hoping she’s in the mood tonight. All women have to do is be themselves.

tracer All I can say is that I do have a couple of children, but thankyou for helping me make my point. It is not inconcievable that you are correct !

48

I am sure this has nothing to do with the fact that western societies don’t blame the victim, whereas many arab societies do. Read about the rape victims in Yugoslavia and how they are afraid to tell their husband because they get beaten and thrown out for letting themselves be defiled.

A hundred years ago, women were afraid to report a rape as they would not be eligible for marriage if they were not a virgin.

Also, look at the high instances of rape by Japanese soldiers in World War II. This was a society that completely dominated women.

I think your hypothesis is pretty asinine. Just because rape isn’t reported as a statistic doesn’t make it less prevalent. There are a million examples. Look at parts of Africa where gang rape is considered a sport by young men, and the young women just accept it as your child might just accept getting hit in the head by the bully while playing Dodge ball.

Erek

49

Hmmmmm…I should think the answers would be pretty clear. Why WERE women repressed? Well, sexual dimorphism and mammalian reproduction answer that question. And we have many women still alive in the United States whose right to vote was recognized during their lifetime. And so repression of women in the present is due to repression of women in the recent past, which was due to repression of women in the distant past, which was due to biology.

Sexual dimorphism and mammalian reproduction ensure that men will typically be more aggressive than women. Because of the way that female mammals carry the developing fetus in their bodies, females mammals must invest much more energy in reproduction than male mammals. And the male mammals usually mate with the females and then contribute absolutely nothing to the care of the offspring.

Sometimes the offspring might get some protection from the males, but that is a mere side effect. The males sometimes protect the rest of the group from danger, but mostly the males “protect” the females from mating with other males.

There is a differential in cost-benefit in sex between male mammals and female mammals. A female can mate with many males, but she can only produce one litter at a time. And the females don’t get any more reproductive success if they mate multiple times. But, a male who mates with multiple females can greatly increase his reproductive fitness.

And so, in mammals, we have the phenomenon of male-male competition for access to females. A male who chases off all other males and mates with all the females achieves a reproductive jackpot. A female who chases away all the other females and mates with all the males only gets a slight reduction in competition for resources. So, often males become larger than females…not so they can hunt, not so they can scare away predators, not so they can provide better, not so they can defend the species, but because they must compete with other males for access to the females. And so we have the familiar spectacle of male sheep smacking heads together, male deer wrestling, male horses fighting, and on and on.

And males don’t just have increased size. They have increased aggressiveness. There is no reason for the females to fight…or rather, the payoff is much much less. But an agressive male that can dominate the other males is more likely to have more offspring. So, males are more aggressive than neccesary for survival. In fact, this extra aggressiveness would appear counterproductive if we look strictly at survival. But of course what counts is not survival but reproduction. If being aggressive means that you might get killed but have a chance of a large reproductive payoff, while being non-aggressive means that you will survive to a ripe old age but never reproduce, then the species will become filled with aggressive males.

And of course humans are no exception. Male humans are more aggressive than female humans. And so we have the familiar spectacle of forced marriage, bride price, sexual double standards etc.

Now, some may argue that all this mammalian reproduction stuff shouldn’t matter, since we have the capability to be rational. Yes, we are rational. But while we have the capability to use reason to achieve our goals, we are not as capable of using reason to chose our goals. Our goals are largely handed to us by 4 billion years of evolution.

If we choose goals that go against human/mammal nature, then those goals will be difficult to achieve. If we choose goals that are harmonious with human/mammal nature, then those goals will be easier to achieve.

And so, here we are. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women. That is always going to have some sort of affect on our society. So…if becoming a political or business leader requires some sort of aggressive competition then we should not be surprised if we find that business and political leaders don’t have a 50-50 gender ratio.

But that doesn’t imply that this is repressive or cultural conditioning. Even if both genders are treated exactly the same, the different physical nature of the sexes means that you are going to get different results. The only way to ensure equal results is to treat the sexes differently.

But, what does all this rambling come down to? Just because we understand where repression of women comes from doesn’t mean that we should tolerate it. But is our goal a 50-50 gender ratio in all jobs, at all times? Or is it merely the freedom of any individual to choose which job they prefer?

50

I suggest that your examples of rape in times of war have nothing to do with sex, but power and intended to demoralize the male members of the enemy or part of a deliberate scheme of ethnic cleansing. The African example I’m not aware of, but I suggest that there is a lot of turmoil there, and stability of the culture has not yet been ahieved in many cases resulting in this anti-social behavior.

My reference to the**increase ** of rape refers to Western societies. As women are by and large no longer considered chattels of men, some men are less likely to attache a sense of transgression to the act of rape. This coupled with the breakdown of religious influence in our society, and a legion of men “who’ve never met a woman that put out for them” has probably increased the potential for rape in all levels of our society.

In Afghanistan, I’m sure the ugliest male could petition the authorities to provide him with a wife, but woe be to him who is caught taking someone elses daughter.

51

No this wasn’t a responsibility men chose to shoulder on their own. Conscription has been a aprt of virtually every agrarian society since the beginning. Most men never wanted to fight, they were forced to by their societies. ‘Men’ didn’t decide to shoulder this responsibility, it was foisted upon them because men are effective fighters whereas women are not. Size, strength, speed, stamina and agression all favour men in battle. Of course the willingness of women to be forced to fight in wars can be easily demonstrated by the number of campaigns launched by equality activists to make compulsory military service legally applicable to both gendres. How many campaigns for that particular equality have there been again?
Mandelstam

No I’m not. I brought up two relevant points. Nothing more nothing less. Implying there is one cause for such a complex phenomenon is as ridiculous as ruling out any cause because it doesn’t provide the sole answer.

You obviously still don’t understand what ‘percieved’ means. Go look it up in a dictionary. I never, ever, ever, at any stage, in any way or in any form suggested that this is a justification.

Can you actually give me one example of a medieval society where the peasants weren’t regularly conscripted, and where this justification was used?

1)Physical strength, stamina etc. are still a major factors in the backbone of military forces: the infantry. Women in the Australian Army are not expected to undertake the same training as men and I suspect the same is true of the US. Simply having missile weapons does not negate the need fr carrying large loads, sprinting across open ground, carrying wounded so0ldiers etc. This aside hygeine for female soldiers is a major problem. It’s been discovered time and again that women operating in muddy trenches and foxholes with no sanitation for more than a month at a time not surprisingly come down with a range of debilitating diseases. Yes for short skirmishes this is perhaps a minor concern, but wars aren’t predicatble and because of this no woman is actually A1 fitness wise.

2)You clearly need to look up ‘perception’ and ‘percieved’ in a dictionary. Do it and then try to understand that just because something is illogical does not mean that it cannot be percieved. A faked moon landing is illogical, yet people still percieve it that way. It’s not that hard to grasp really.

1)Women are still largely unable and apparently unwilling to defend the realm. But that’s another debate.
2)Who cares if this is the case now. It wasn’t in the past, and the past shapes the present. As upsetting as that may be for you it’s unfortunately true.
3)And most important: What logic and what argument? For Gods’ sakes go and look up ‘perception’ in a dictionary and then tell me where it requires logic or argument in any form.

Can I have a cite for that? Really that’s a pretty bold statement.

Well you got one of them. Reproductive function. This is a pretty major difference and one that ensures that the genders can’t be equal.

There is little doubt that hormonal differences are affected by social environment. That’s pretty well established. And? Men have far, far, far highre testosterione level and far, far, far lower eostrogen levels. These hormones have indisputable and marked effects on physiology and psychology. That is also a fact. For these reason men and women aren’t equal. To suggest that “hormonal differences that may–and I emphasize may” stem from differences in reproductive physiology is as bizarre as saying the moon may be made of rock. That hormonal diffeneces are the result of differences in gonadal structure isn’t open for debate. I’d love to see the cite that casts even the slightest doubt over the fact that hormonal differences stem from physical diffences in the reproductive systems. Please provide such.

There are also indisputable gender differences in the brain structure of new born infants. Numerous studies have shown behavioural differences between infanbts of different genders. Males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but as a result of genetics.

Well assuming you’re female, you’ll never be able to be the parent to 400 children in your lifetime. I will never be able to give birth. I will never be able to breatfeed. We are unequal.
Probability says that you will never be able to bench press 200 kilos naturally. Probability syas you are shorter than my 6 feet. Probability syas you are carrying more body fat than my current 5%. Probability says that you are not as agressive as I am and all other factors being equal never will be.We are unequal.
This isn’t really open for debate, men and women are inherently different and unequal in terms of height, strength, repiratory rate, lung capacity, aggressiveness, propensity for various medical disorders, rate and pattern of hair growth, skin thickness, pain tolerance. I could go on, but these are all scientific facts, not speculation.

I suggest that you go pick up a basic human physiology text and do some reading if you need to ask how men and women are necessarily and inevitably unequal.

Well that’s comletely untestable. What I can say is that in all cultures, in all families and across all times right down the fossil records males have been larger, faster, stronger and heavier. We know from all extant societies and all historical societies that men have been more agressive. We can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that androgens lead to increased assertiveness and agression. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that males posess orders of magnitude more androgens. We know that there are physiological differences between the brains of males and females at birth. We know that in all existing simian populations their are gross behavioural differences between males and females, and that this is particularly pronounced amongst other apes. We know that imbalances in androgens and eostrogens bring about marked personality changes. To suggest that despite all this evidence nurture rather than nature dictates human behaviour is about as valid as sayng that their is a gentic basis for race. It’s an argument from ignorance. It can never be proven one way or the other, but all the evidence is against such an hypothesis. Environment indisputably exerts some controlling influence, but to suggest that amongst humans, uniquely, gender isn’t a prime controller of personality is bizzare.

Yes of course. And a chimpazee will make a better soldier than a quadraplegic with a comlete inability to communicate. But the vast majority of humans make better soldiers than the vast majority of chimps, and the fact remains that the vast majority of men are stronger, faster, fitter and more agressive than the vast majority of women. Those factors remain vitally important for soldiers.

Well then in Australia at least we don’t have that. Although women are legally required to be paid the same as any male filling the same [position they are exempt from carrying out numerous tasks, even if the position requires it. As things stand unless you are a fedrel employee males cannot legally be the victim of sexual discrimination in this state. Women are not required to sit jury duty, they cannot be conscipted in times of war. There are health centres taht one can only attend if female, yet no health centres that are closed to females. There is a governement department of womens affairs, yet no department of mens affairs. Women gain custody of children in separtion cases 80% of the time. there are womens shelters with special laws that make it illegal fro men to enter, yet no corresponding mens shelters that women can’t eneter. It seems then that if that is your definition of equality, and repression and subjugation is being treated unequally then in Australia at least it is not women but men who are repressed.

AHunter3

I’ve got to challenge that. I can’t think of even one agricultural society where the products of agriculture weren’t distributed amongst all members, particularly in times of crisis. Can you actually provide an example of where this may have occured?

I can agree wholeheartedly with most of the logic presented, but where exactly did women become more repressed than men? Men and women both want children. If they don’t neither are obliged in your scenario to marry and hence both retain total and utter independence. If they do marry then both are expected to work to raise thse children. Seems to me like a perfectly equitable partnership. How exactly do you see such an arrangement as repressing women more than men?

Well this is a debate in itself, but in Austalia women work on average something like seven years less than men. yet unemployment rates are slightly higher amongst men than women. Since being in charge of an organisation with authority is more likely to come with age and experience, it’s hardly suprising men, who have the most experience, hold most of these positions. I could easily attribute this to a choice by women not to work.

Well in this country they get paid the same amount for doing slightly less work. I’d have to see the statistics to see whether the lack of promotions can be attributed to women working less. I’ll agree the genders are treated differently WRT behaviour, but I know from experience that cuts both ways. I’d never get away with behaviour that’s acceptable for women.

Well as much I may sympathise, that’s hardly suitable for GD. Men are orders of magnitude more likely to get assaulted at bars, and charges are far less likely to be laid in cases of assaults against males, whether the offender be male or female. Men also get raped in bars. And I doubt very much if you could provide any evidence that “well-financed conservative powers would like to reverse this trend”. That at least sounds like pure speculation.

Dude,

Could you provide a cite that demonstrates that men have smaller and more fragile egos than women, and anothe that proves that keeping women down makes the majority of men happy? Or are you talking through your arse?

52

To follow up greeny, I believe his contextualization is right on the money. I think the poster in question, Erek is refering to problems found in urban southern Africa which were widely reported on in the west recently. Instability and poverty.

53

I absolutely agree with the pooints Mandelstam made in her post. To clarify my comment a little further, I very much wanted to stress that some pregnant women may need additional “protection,” but certainly not that all pregnant women are in need of special consideration. By protection, in the present day, I mean things such as maternity leave, or special assignment depending on the job in question. Unlike a person (male or female) with a heart condition, pregnancy is not an illness. However, it is a temporary condition that may call for some consideration. There are some jobs that require strict physical standards that a pregnant woman might not meet while she is pregnant. That a pregnant woman might request reassignment while pregnant, take a maternity leave and then return to her job after the birth of the child is a form of societal protection, and a necessary one, IMHO.

54

Gaspode, I believe that your belief that conscription was a common phenomenon is ahistorical.

Just do some reading about feudal europe. The serfs weren’t conscripted, they were forbidden to bear weapons. I think you are generalizing from how modern states are organized. Most societies haven’t had enough surplus to be able to conscript the whole male population for war until the modern industrial states of the 19th and 20th centuries. Even during the 19th century European armies tended to be small professional forces rather than mass conscript armies.

But, there have been many societies where every adult male was also supposed to be something of a warrior as well. But those societies typically didn’t have the sort of strog central government that could support conscription. Rather, each individual man would decide for himself who to follow, when to fight, and where to go. Which is why I would call these people warriors rather than soldiers.

While males have always done more fighting than females, I think widespread conscription has been extremely rare throughout history.

55

I think you are right that my war references do not apply. However I still do not agree with you. I think that it’s not so much that rape is less prevalent there, that it is less reported, and less looked down upon, therefore, “no harm no foul” and nothing to talk about. I think that in western societies rape isn’t more prevalent that it is more widely reported and that’s the major difference. I think that we have less rapes now but more are reported, whereas in other countries that have a more subservient view of women, they don’t care and probably don’t report it.

Erek

56

Why repression? Maybe because there is something to be gained from it-status, wealth, power, control-those kind of things. Consider how men may benefit from the repression of women (or vice versa). Also consider how difficult it is to change a historically male-dominated society, both men and women would need to adjust some pretty deep-seated behaviors and beliefs. For example, why do women in western culture still tend to take their husband’s surname? Are women still subconciously viewed or view themselves as property?

On the other hand, why would women accept this social inequality? Obviously many don’t, but it might help to think about what happens to women who take on (traditionally) male roles. Most assertive women I know are not particularily well-liked by their peers, they tend to be both feared and resented by men and women alike.
It seems to me that there is overwhelming societal pressure for women to assume a submissive role.

57

grienspace:“Mandelstam, if your lust for your neighbour is serious, them I’m fairly certain you will succeed in seducing him. All it took for Lewinski, not exactly attractive looking, was to show her bare ass to the President of the United States, and she had him, nearly destroying the man and his career and plunging the nation into a political crisis that captured the attention of the entire world.”

grien, I believe you’ve answered me sincerely and I’m going to try very hard not to sound like smartass as I reply. But here, on the basis of Bill Clinton–a man who has a history of being attracted to a wide variety of women, particularly younger women–you are concluding that any woman will succeed in seducing any man that she happens to fancy. And yet, in the very same breath your ready to say that Monica Lewinsky, a pretty twenty-three year old who’s a bit overweight (by today’s emaciated standards) is “not exactly attractive looking.” I’m sorry, but it doesn’t add up. Why don’t you check out a newsgroup where middle-aged and older women discuss the difficulty of meeting men. I am in my mid-30s and I know many single women my age who are already freaked out about not being able to attract men.

“Ever hear of a smart powerful woman risking her career for a man?”

Yes–lots. Wasn’t there a female senator who was found to be having an extra-marital affair with some other guy during the Clinton/Lewinsky nonsense? Didn’t Joan Collins and Cher both end up being taken in by the much younger men they married/dated? Ever heard the term “gigolo”?

[On women making fools of themselves for men]
"For love perhaps, but not for sex. That in no way implies that a woman cannot be aggressively pursuing sex, but they don’t go silly over it and risk their futures for sex."

Grien, these are lines in the sand; at best differences of degree. Are you suggesting that in the sixth grade I “loved” the host of teen idols and rock stars whose photos I collected? As to risking their futures for sex–women do that all the time. I know a woman at a high managerial level who had to leave her job b/c she was discovered (by her secretary) receiving oral sex from a male co-worker. Both parties were married; and the relationship wasn’t serious. (Interestingly, both felt that she was the one who had to find the new job as it was felt to be more humiliating for her than for him. What does that tell you about the effects of the double standard?)

[On men’s “signalling” with interest/erection]

Mandelstam, please don’t be discouraged. Many men apparently have erectile difficulties when under the influence, a common occurence when dating and particularly singles bars.

<laughs> Grienspace, for the record, I’m in a happy, monogamous relationship and neither my husband nor I drink very much.

“Any woman secure in her womanhood can certainly overcome that problem or enjoy alternatives to copulation.”

Well that’s a good point. Again, putting my personal feelings aside, a great many women don’t feel secure in their womanhood; they feel hugely depressed if a man, even their own husband, seems to need extra encouragement. And it’s partly all this BS about likening humans to the animal kingdom that makes them think that it would be inappropriate or embarassing for them to take the lead. (For myself, I’ve never met a man who didn’t like more of an aggressive stance; but that’s not my point.)

  • “And apparently you must be subtle about your aggressiveness. I just watch a program on male porn stars and they all find Viagra indespensible to a good performance when under the gun or in this case the camera.”*

Well since Viagra was only invented a few years ago, I have to find that a bit of an exaggeration.

[I had said]: "Believe it or not, we’re often attracted to a particular guy; and, when we are, we pursue him if we’ve got the chance. We don’t wait around for some other guy’s “proactivity.” "

Grien replied: “And that is my point exactly. Men who pursue women are wasting their time if they don’t get signals. In the end, it’s you who chooses.”

Doesn’t this sound to you as though both choose. After all, if both parties haven’t chosen, than by definition someone has been coerced. You seem to believe that men are so hardwired to crave sex of any kind that they’re powerless to refuse any sexual offer from any living person with a vagina. Doesn’t that seem a bit overstated?

[On my husband; smarter than George and cuter than Bill]

*“Aw Man, may I call you Man?” *

<bows>

“You are making my point exactly. It wasn’t anyone else making your choice for you was it? You are liberated aren’t you? I’m sure your husband is a bit of an alpha as well, and as you say good looking and a bit of a catch. Several hundred years ago you would be severely encouraged by your mother to marry someone who suggested upward mobility regardless of physical attractiveness or love. If your family was anywhere near the top of the heirarchy they would be pushing you up there with a coming out “Ball” featuring the top bachelors of the best families, all near the top of the local power structure.”

This is totally garbled. First, yes my husband was my choice but it does not follow that I chose him because he’s “a bit of an alpha.” (How do you even know that I’m alpha material?) Second, my mother actually did encourage me to marry someone more financially secure than my husband was when I met him. My mother just likes money a lot more than I do. That hasn’t changed very much over the years. Third, you are confusing matters of class (e.g., debutante balls and the like for the very wealthy) with matters of sex and gender (whether women choose whom they choose for biological reasons, or for social reasons). Nowhere have I suggested that social and cultural attitudes don’t affect people’s choices: just the opposite. It’s biological assumptions that I’m questioning here.

[I had said…]: “Women actually like sex…”

*"Man, I fully believe women like sex, and can achieve orgasmic experiences far beyond those of the average man, but they don’t generally rape men, *

True–but a) it’s rather difficult for a woman to force a man to have intercourse; b) there’s the strength factor involved in such an act and c) socialization is a factor here too…

  • and don’t generally spend the day dreaming about getting laid or drooling over pornographic material of naked members of the opposite sex, masturbating three or four times a day while wondering how your classmate mannaged to get laid by the most beautiful cheerleader in the school who won’t even acknowledge you. *

Honestly, grienspace, how do you know what women lay dreaming about or what they think about or look at when they masturbate (much less how often they masturbate)? Have you done a study on female masturbation? Do you think when we masturbate we think about figure skating, or shopping, or interior decorating? Or do you think when we masturbate we think about “love”? Let me tell you, G., that when I was teenager I wasn’t thinking about any of the above when I masturbated; and if the thoughts and fantasies I had were available in magazines I’d have been interested in seeing them. Do you think straight women aren’t turned on by the sight of a man’s body raring to go? Are you aware of the fact that such photographs are illegal? Has it never struck you that the status quo thrives on teen age boys looking at titty pictures; but that the idea of marketing Long Dong Silver to fourteen-year-old girls would be enough to start a civil war?!

“I would have taken anything I could get back then. Any girl could get laid, but not any guy. Women are far more discriminating when it comes to sex and therin lies the control. Women don’t even have to deliberately excercise the control, its just there.”

I’m going to let another female Doper intercede here. I’ve already said enough about my own personal experiences. But this seems to me like a clear-cut case of the “grass is always greener.”

“Us married men have to make a conscientious effort to remember birthdays, anniversaries, say I love you and take out the garbage and put down the toilet seat, all the while hoping she’s in the mood tonight. All women have to do is be themselves.”

SAY WHAT??? Grienspace, I know women whose guys won’t even look at them unless they’re willing to wear a certain kind of garment, or do “X” particular act, or promise to lose 15 pounds, or rent “Y” kind of video, etc. etc. Whatever your own personal experiences, the world is full of straight women who are not getting enough sex from their husbands/boyfriends, or who have to go through all kinds of contortions to get it, as well as women who have no husband/boyfriend at all. And if the only reason you say happy birthday and “I love you” to your wife is in the hopes that she’s in the mood, it’s time for you to get a divorce.
Seriously, G. I have to remind my husband to take out the garbage too; but it’s never been a factor in the quality or quantity of our sex life. I wonder what Mrs. G. would think of this thread if she read it. I can’t speak for her level of sexual interest, but I can’t help but think that you’ve helped to make the bed you’re lying in :wink:

58

Who is doing the conscripting? Why weren’t women conscripted also? It wasn’t the women who made these rules. Women weren’t allowed to vote, much less make laws.

I’d have to disagree. Most men are more than willing to fight for their county. As women would have been had they been allowed to fight.

This is certainly true during our hunter-gatherer existance, but once wars had gone past the stone throwing stage, this reasoning applied less and less. But by then society already decided women couldn’t fight in wars.
Women could fight in wars. Men kept them out.

Here in the United States, women have been fighting for the right to fight and die in combat. They have been denied this right again and again by the men who run the military.

59

**

Rape is a violent act of agression and control that involves the humiliation of a victim via forced sexual contact. Rape has nothing to do with forcing a woman to have sex, because the man is unable to obtain a sexual partner any other way. In rape, the forced sex is sought as a means of controlling, humiliating, and overpowering a victim.

60

Lemur I’ll stick by my statement that conscription has been a part of virtually every Agragraian scisiety since the beginning. Greeks, Romans, saxons, Japanese and Europeans all practised some form of conscription. The history of conscription is such that I can’t think of any society where regular ongoing conscription was commonplace, and this is no more true now, but the potential for conscription exists and existed.

Even in medieval Europe the right to summon local militias to defend his territory was a right of the medieval lord. These militias were comprised of serfs. You’re quite right in saying that serfs were forbidden from bearing hand weapons (staves and crooks were exempted from these bans in most nations), but militias were either simply expected to provide arms for themselves and became essentially ‘cannon fodder’ if the enemy closed, or on rare occasions weapons were provided, to be returned afterwards. The use of the bow however was widely practised in England, and at one juncture every male was required by law to practice with the bow a set number of hours per month. This wasn’t being enforced so they could join the army if they felt like it.
Biggirl,

Umm, a brief history lesson. Men weren’t making the laws eithhr throughout most of history. The majority of people weren’t allowed to vote. Lawmaking was reserved for the privileged few. You’re now running on circular logic. Men made the laws because men had control, men had control because men made the laws. This assumes women are already repressed. the OP asks why women are repressed. Stating that it is so hardly goes any way towarsd answering the question does it.

Then please explain to use why, if most men want to fight for their countries, any politician in modern times has felt the need to legistlate for conscription. Surely if fighting is something most men want to do this would hardly be necessary.
Do you actually have any cites to support you assertion that “Most men are more than willing to fight for their county”? The fact that legistalation has been found to be necessary to enforce it seems to contradict your assertion.

Unless you are an exeptionally strong woman you couldn’t even swing a broadsword for more than a about a minute. Unless you are an olympic athlete I doubt you could even draw a longbow (I’m a fairly big man and I have difficulty doing it more than once or twice). To suggest that medieval weapons didn’t require strength or stamina is so ridiculous to anyone with any knowledge of weapons use that it hardly warrants comment. Of course women could fight in wars. Cripped men caould fight in wars. They’v never been allowed to even when they wanted to because they are more of a burden than a help.

And here we see a classic strawman. I never mentioned the right to fight in combat if they desire. I’m asking for examples of campaigns where women have demanded that, in the name of equality, they be forced to fight and die, whether they like it or not. To be imprisoned if they refuse. Got any examples of thse campaigns Biggirl? A person’s right to fight is like Negro’s right to have her skin whitened. There’s a big difference between the government giving them the right to do so, and the government forcing them to do so against their will.