I think you’re missing my point that SOMEBODY has codified the (usuallymale) negative behavior of drunken brawls as a crime. Their reasoning: it’s a waste of humans and objects when they get damaged only to prove a silly point. Makes sense.
“Expensive manicures” is an example I picked because we all can agree that it’s wasteful and usually a female indulgence. But no “real” negative side effects? C’mon… I sense a female bias right there :D! That time and money could have been used to help people, but instead is wasted. This is not labeled a crime in this society.
However, in a few current and past very strictly male-dominated societies such behavior would have been grounds for legal punishment. Examples being early Communist Russia and China, or a country controlled by strict orthodox Muslims. Such displays of material wealth or showy female decoration would get you in big trouble.
I feel that if one of the above example societies were strictly controlled by women female indulgences would be far less of a crime. I wish I had an example to back it up, but I don’t think there have been many examples of that in history… owing to the fact that men are physically stronger and wouldn’t allow female autocracy.
I do. “The hand that rocks the cradle” is usually the mother’s, and the teaching profession in primary schools is still around 75% female IIRC. (I’m having problems finding a cite on that.) These formative years are when boys learn that being daring, creative, or competative in the way boys prefer will most likely get you in trouble. Most teachers are thoughtful enough to try and manage boys’ impulses for the better; but the bias against boys is naturally present due to the requirements for a quiet classroom. For learning to read, write, and do math. Girl stuff.
And even in this thread some women have shown their feelings that men who look at photographic pornography are sexually deviant.
Overall I just think there’s a small double standard as to what immoral behaviors are illegal. Small because it’s less likely that a dominantly female negative behavior is called a crime.
First is biology and our “blueprint”. The male is designed by nature to be aggressive - he’s the hunter and the defender (remember that we are placing about 100 years of social change up against over a million years of evolution here).
Second is social. Males are conditioned by society to violence. TV, movies and music have a huge impact on the development of a psyche, and if you are taught that your first solution to a problem should be violence, guess what’s going to happen when you’re confronted with a problem?
It is a crime. A serious crime. It is a violent crime, and it sometimes leads to death or serious injury.
Average prison time for assault is currently 33 months.
I see no comparison at all to the very serious crime of assault and battery and nail salons. Anyone who cant see the difference between them is a potentially dangerous criminal, and probably a male.
Wow… so males are not only inherently inferior but also stupid?
Look, the construction of a society where there is no place for agression has led to a male identity crisis. You may be familiar with the works of Susan Faludi–try reading Stiffed. I’m not going to argue that males aren’t more agressive, but I get the impression from your posts that you believe the male gender to be entirely psychotic or that we should entirely exise our compulsions to be agressive because society no longer sees anything productive in it.
I might as well ask a woman to stop nurturing her child.
Nurturing children is important even in an industrialized society because, well, how would children survive at high rates otherwise? The entire species’ survival depends on nurturing and caring for babies.
Aggression in the form of physical violence, obtaining disproportionate amounts of power to other’s detriment and pushing others down just causes disorder and harm in an advanced society. The main reason why this was important in the past would be because other tribes might invade so it was important to have some form of defense…but also, to steal natural resources from others when yours ran out. In more advanced societies which are designed to have enough or even a *surplus * of resources (thanks to technology etc.) for it’s citizens, this type of aggression actually leads to negative consequences.
In short: You cannot compare child-nurturing to aggressiveness in it’s necessity because the former is in huge demand even in more peaceful societies and it is not inherently harmful to any one really, quite the contrary.
physics4me, just so you know the comment timestamps are those in the upper left hand corner of each post. That particular comment you’re responding to was posted 10 1/2 years ago and that person hasn’t posted here for the last 4 years.
Welcome to the board, physics4me. If you want to start a new thread about this subject, please go ahead. But like lieu said, this one is 10 years old, so it’s going to be hard to keep a real conversation going. So I’m closing the thread.
