Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Man/Woman equality from a different perspective


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Man/Woman equality from a different perspective Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/2/2009 9:19:31 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		OK this has been brought up before, and buried in posts that are on different topics, but brought up this issue are pretty much these thought. However, I think these thoughts merit their own thread so here goes. See who takes a bite, if anyone indeed grasps my concept. But given the usually high intelligence here, if the thread is a dud, it may just be that nobody has anything to say.

The thing is that so many things in the world have changed that the view of life in earlier times is quite obscured to many people, and despite relatively high intelligence, have simply not thought of certain things in certain ways.

Now my base assertion is that Men and Women cannot be thought of as equal because we are essentially different creatures. Am I a better apple or is she a better orange ? But this is a seperate issue because a relationship between the two is synbiotic. Relative standings in life, vulnerabilities and so forth must be discarded to get to the root reason for this. Hard to believe, but this should explain why I believe that Men should be in the position of authority, if they think in "manly" ways, and the following is dedicated to explaining that "declaration" as it were.

Shedding everything we know about modern life now, what is it that makes me think this way ? That Men should be in control for the most part, yet that has no bearing on any superiority or inferiority ?

In the beginning there was nature a came with that was the "invention" or you could say the "evolution" of what is now called the nuclear family. This has been normally recognized as the best environment in which to produce the best offspring, who will carry on the human race. (nice Mods huh !)

In this situation, there is no formula like Enfamil or anything so there is one constant, A recently pregnant Mother would not be the best choice to go out and plow a field. Therefore she is faced with certain set of problems, many of which are, or at least seem imminent. In the meantime the Man is out plowing the field, and since we're here, the plan seems to have worked. In plowing that field the Man decided what to plant where and when, to assure an adequate food supply for the family.

In doing so in an agrarian culture, or partly so, his results are seen months later, and he has to learn to plan ahead. How much sweet corn do we need ? or even how much sweet corn do we want ? He has to plan ahead, or become poor or perish, and that gives him his power, bestowed by nature herself. :-)

Meantime she has to meet immediate needs, and his are among them. Thus he is dependant upon her, without her life would be quite a bit harder, so she is no less than him in any stretch of the imagination.

Over time of course she doesn't get all that physuically strong, but with all that plowing because there was also no John Deere deisel tractor and attachments to do the work, Men got physically stronger than Women and this was reinforced by who got to do what chores in years past as well. It is a matter of conditionig on at least two levels and went on for many generations.

In an ideal relationship her input would be highly regarded, but I can envision things like the Man saying some like "Sorr'rry but we caannot do that because ....." because he thinks ahead. In other cases her ideas are made to happen with his full cooperation and support. Of course, two heads are better than one and nothing I have stated says anything to the contrary.

That is why I would not want a Woman Pesident, and I actually avoid working for Women. It is not a matter oif inferiority, it is a matter of a different thought process, ingrained by nature of centuries.

The reason I believe that many do not see it this way is because times have changed and these differences are bluurry to say the least, but I think what is happening is that those Men who think in a manly way are getting scarce. It seems that everyone needs an immediate soution, and do not seek lasting solutions. They think of the here and now not the future.

Does that not seem so ?

I state now that I fully admit that especially in a community such as this (CM) these roles are frequently reversed, shaded or interpolated, at the very least as far as gender is concerned. Well that is simply another facet of Mother nature along with the passage of time. But I hypothesize that these traits still exist, at least among the "normals". To a much lesser degree than in the past, but still there.

Now bear in mind before you light the flamethrowers, that in no way do I imply male superiority. To prefer a male in a position of power in this case means that he berlongs ther. I have asserted more than once that a leader is actually a servant if he is a true leader. The responsibility to ones who are led is heavy, when it is accepted and discharged in the proper way. Society has exhalted them, and we can't seem to find a true leader anymore, but I think it was different in the past. If that Man of the past planted the wrong crops, or they didn't grow for whatever reason, that fell on his shoulders.

Was he greatly more instrumental in assuring the future for his families very survival ? I think not, he was one component of two who shared that responsibility. What his autority came from was not his fist nor his strength, it came from his mind. Or rather the respect for his mind, in that the authority granted to him was granted willingly by those he led, into prosperity or death. To which was directly due to his decisions.

So in closing, the main thing I am trying to express is that society has changed so much since those days that many, despite high intelligence may not be able to see the picture from this perspective. That's why I bought it up. I'd like to treat it as seperate issue, how Men and Women adapted over the years and why this and why that, not discussing salary discrepancies.

Enough for now, I have to drag my knuckles over to the fridge and grab me some grub, damn Woman didn't cook up anything, oh wait, there is none. LOL

T
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 12:12:02 AM   
VanessaChaland


Posts: 362
Joined: 11/23/2008
Status: offline 		Billions of things happened while we evolved to shape our tradtional roles and places in society for the greater good. To me its not important if we, female and male, are "equal" (we are not) but rather the important thing is if we have equal rights and opportunities.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 12:17:47 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline 		the thing is, right, you're talking about ancient old days with men doing all the basic work to keep the family going, when in alot of hunter gather societies, the women were the ones doing the mundane work that kept the society alive, while the men went to hunt or dedicated themselves to ritual and flute-making. the women were often the ones who packed and moved camps in nomadic societies, repaired the houses, gathered the majority of the staple foods, obviously cared and raised the next generation. they were the ones doing most of the cultivating and food gathering in the beginning. male position in alot of hunter gather socities became tied to hunting, since meat was rare.
look at alot of traditional native american societies, the sepik of new guinea, etc etc.
what you are presenting as the "reason" why men should be in charge doesn't actually jive with anthropological history at all.
or even natural history across the majority of species.

when you look at many social animals, you find matriarchy or partnership. you find female animals in the position of making decisions on where the herd moves, how long they'll stay there, which watering hole they'll choose. you see, also, a male who usually exists on the fringe but who does not truly LEAD.  or you find those, like wolves, who are essentially partners. then you have animals who exist apart from each other altogether.
there are very few instances of a male leading a group in nature.

even in many african societies, while the sexes have separate "houses" in which they congregate, the men's house is headed by the mother goddess. =p

i just don't buy your theory. sorry.

< Message edited by RainydayNE -- 3/3/2009 12:24:08 AM >

(in reply to VanessaChaland)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 12:25:46 AM   
MissSepphora1


Posts: 669
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline 		Even in an agricultural society, men were not cooking, so how would they know how much of what vegetable they would need?
And from living in a rural community in a semi-agricultural family, I learned very young that men may plow the land, but the women and children were ususally the one doing the mundane work of sowing the seeds, weeding and watering the plants, and picking the fruits and vegetables of their labor.  Yes I know this because I did this every spring and summer until I was probably 11 or 12.

< Message edited by MissSepphora1 -- 3/3/2009 12:26:38 AM >

(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 12:29:04 AM   
Asherdelampyr


Posts: 9556
Joined: 11/14/2006
From: The Desert
Status: offline 		I can see what you are saying Term, and agree with it
it is a matter of balance, not equality
personally though I never did like the many varied meanings attached to the word "equality" Opportunity is equal, rights will never be in my not so humble opinion, because rights are dependant on what each individual is willing to earn.

In older times male and female did not survive without the other. The man had to think on a more aggresive level, the woman on a more passive one for obvious reasons, and I personally believe that there is a breakdown in society because passive people are forced to be aggresive and vice-versa. I think that breakdown shows itself in many ways, one of which being the remarkably high divorce rate in the US and other "First world" countries...

One isnt better than the other, but both have a role to fulfill for peace to exist.

_____________________________

Pirate King,

The nicest man you'll ever bleed for

Posting Help

Vitam Piratae Eligo

The Rainmaker

(in reply to VanessaChaland)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 12:31:36 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1

Even in an agricultural society, men were not cooking, so how would they know how much of what vegetable they would need?
And from living in a rural community in a semi-agricultural family, I learned very young that men may plow the land, but the women and children were ususally the one doing the mundane work of sowing the seeds, weeding and watering the plants, and picking the fruits and vegetables of their labor.  Yes I know this because I did this every spring and summer until I was probably 11 or 12.


yep yep yep, i can totally relate to this.
who was the one sewing sacks of root and throwing them up on the delivery trailer? my grandma. who was the one inside being an "administrator." my grandpa =p
not saying that he didn't do his fair share, because he did. he started the business =p but to say that he should be in charge because he's bigger and stronger and did most of the work, well that's just fallacious. because he (and men in general throughout history) didn't.
they've just found crafty ways of discounting alot of the work women do.
staple foods that were gathered by women in old h-g societies were worth LESS because they were in more abundance, even though the tribe relied on them MORE. =p you ate more corn and seeds than you ate meat, but the meat became more important. and who did the hunting? the men. =p
they established a system by which they became important for doing something that was in no way more important than what the women were doing. =p
when the animals migrated away with the change in the seasons, what did they live on? food the women gathered and prepared. but no, this food (and their work) was less important. =p

NOTE: i suggest anyone who agrees with termyn8or (i imagine most of which will be men) should seriously study ancient anthropology and natural history of animals.

< Message edited by RainydayNE -- 3/3/2009 12:34:32 AM >

(in reply to MissSepphora1)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 1:01:48 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		Term,

There are a couple of points that need to be addressed here.  One is that the nuclear family model was not the norm throughout most of human history.  People lived and many still do, in small bands, villages,  etc.  The work was divided along gender lines, age, ability and skill sets.  In many villages the women work together and watch the youngsters at the same time.

And as regards long term planning, pregnancy and the raising of youngsters are the very reasons women excel at long term planning and multi-tasking.  Knowing that your off-spring will be helpless, unable to feed or walk or care for themselves for several years makes long term planning a matter of species survival.
 
As Rainy Day mentions there was a shift from the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) hunter/gatherer societies to Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers/herders societies.

A good overview of that shift is found on Wiki - 


"Neolithic"
 
Farming

A significant and far-reaching shift in human subsistence and lifestyle was to be brought about in areas where crop farming and cultivation were first developed: the previous reliance on an essentially nomadic hunter-gatherer subsistence technique or pastoral transhumance was at first supplemented, and then increasingly replaced by, a reliance upon the foods produced from cultivated lands. These developments are also believed to have greatly encouraged the growth of settlements, since it may be supposed that the increased need to spend more time and labor in tending crop fields required more localized dwellings. This trend would continue into the Bronze Age, eventually giving rise to towns, and later cities and states whose larger populations could be sustained by the increased productivity from cultivated lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Stone_Age

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 1:09:29 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

And as regards long term planning, pregnancy and the raising of youngsters are the very reasons women excel at long term planning and multi-tasking.  Knowing that your off-spring will be helpless, unable to feed or walk or care for themselves for several years makes long term planning a matter of species survival.
 


exactly.

men tend to think more in a straight line, and women tend to think in a web. women also generally prefer reaching consensus and networking, whereas men tend to argue over an issue and fight for one solution.
again, check sociological and anthropological study.

i believe the reason for this is BECAUSE women stayed at home in groups (and therefore HAD to learn to deal with societal struggle/in-fighting/conflict) and men often left the group for long periods of time (months at a time in some cases) and existed solitarily.
my oft-used example of a bull vs. cow elephant sums this up pretty well. cow elephants are very diplomatic but firm, they will chase off males who threaten their families, direct their herd to new feeding grounds, organize the others in care of the new calves. males exist solitarily and meet with females usually only to mate.
horse herds are also lead by a lead mare, although we have falsely assumed that the stallion in the herd was the leader. he, again, exists mostly on the fringe.

i think that when you look at nature, you can find the answers to just about anything.

males and females are equal in their WORTH, not necessarily their talents.

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 2:40:45 AM   
hizgeorgiapeach


Posts: 1672
Status: offline 		Another thing that you seem to be ignoring - or forgetting - Termy, pertains to later European society.  Much more recent in terms of societal evolution, but quite removed from Us - modern first worlders - nonetheless.
 
Once settlements were established to maintain those agrarian fields, it was the males who frequently wandered off looking for easier pickings, or to fight over territorial rights, expand things beyond what was actually needed, play testosterone driven and meaningless dominance games like kill the other guy and subjugate the remaining women and children at the (literal) point of sharp objects.
 
Wars of conquest, territorial expansion, raids on other villages/societiess - those were men's doing, and left women at home BY THEMSELVES to tend to fields, crops, animals, plan for those LONG TERM things that you go on and on about - and frequently left women at home By Themselves for YEARS at a time, if not for good, since raiding/making war was a risky business that cost a lot of males lives that might otherwise have been long and actually Productive.
 
You are dead wrong in your premise simply because the "boys" often weren't home TO do all that Long Term Planning concerning what crops to plant and when, how many sheep to sheer to spin into thread and then weave into cloth, whether or not to try and increase the number of domesticated animals in the stable, etc.  Who WAS at home making those decisions, while simultaniously keeping the next generation alive and relatively healthy, keeping watch for Other idiot short term thinking raider males, keeping the general bonds of society going and strong via interdependance on her sisters?  Oh yeah - that would be the Wives, Mothers, Sisters, Daughters, Aunts, Nieces, and Granddaughters of those males out roaming around, looking for conquest and women who were left "unprotected" by Other males who were out roaming around looking for easy plunder at the point of a sword.

_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 5:37:04 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		People keep on confusing equality with likeness. Men and women are equal because they have equal rights (or should have them). This doesn't mean they are alike.

Difference between the sexes used to mean different equality of rights and opportunity. When I hear you say that men and women are not equal (and I've heard this said many, many times on these boards), it rings the unpleasant bells of patriarchy, misogyny and phallocracy in my ears.

As for this:

quote:

Term

That is why I would not want a Woman Pesident, and I actually avoid working for Women. It is not a matter oif inferiority, it is a matter of a different thought process, ingrained by nature of centuries.



It's funny you should mention this: ever since I was cognicent of the world around me, I was shocked by the ridiculously small representation of my gender in public life. Perhaps we should segregate by gender, because I can assure you that being governed by men often leaves an unpleasant taste of slavery in my mouth. Let's face it: most of them don't have a fucking clue.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 3/3/2009 5:40:36 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 5:43:48 AM   
TNstepsout


Posts: 1558
Joined: 8/3/2005
Status: offline 		Sounds like you are just trying to justify your belief system. I think it's hogwash.  Women and men may be two different fruits, but which fruit has more value?  Both nourish and feed the hungry and impart their own unique flavor. Should apples rule oranges or oranges rule apples?  How silly. So that's what you are arguing about. Who's top fruit?

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 5:45:46 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		Term actually sounds like he read too much John Norman, which is surprising.

_____________________________



(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 6:20:53 AM   
LunaVenus


Posts: 161
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline 		I was just thinking last night about an old sub that I released from service. He was a handsome chap, 6'3", thick frame, lovely golden, light brown skin, dark wavy hair.  Mistress was laying marble tiles and needed slave to do some lifting, etc. The self emasculated thing told me he was not capable of lifting the same boxes of marble tiles that Mistress herself can lift. Needless to say, I found him to be a totally useless sissy and found no use for him from then on. If Mistress herself with sleek, lean, thin arms can lift a box of marble, how can not a thick 6'3" man with muscles?  So pathetic.

My mother  has framed walls in her house, installed bathrooms and even tarred her own roof. And now she is 60something and still a BULL.
Men and women are often capable of many of the same things, can think in the same ways. Very few real circumstances actually really differentiate us these days except that a man still has more physical strength......but in the case of my big strong sissy slave.....not even that LOL

_____________________________

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1jAuT5blcko

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 6:24:59 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		My mother is an architect: she doesn't even need to carry the masonry. She tells (sorry: orders) the mason where to lay it :-) .

_____________________________



(in reply to LunaVenus)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 6:36:52 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline 		This might be a strange thing for a slave to talk about but it makes very little sense to assume one gender thinks "better" than another.  The truth is, females are specifically designed to survive better than males.  Our higher body fat ratio allows greater resistance to starvation, extreme heat or extreme cold.  Should our brains be injured, well there is greater trans-hemisperical brain activity than in males, females recover easier from things like stroke or head injury.  Female is the default sex in embryos, females carry more genes than males in the same number of chromosones.  Biologically, it seems Nature would want females to be in charge.  In herd animals, this is the case.  It is the dominant female in a herd that decides when to move to new pasture, when to head to the watering hole and is the defender of the offspring, the male has no other role than to provide sperm.  In solitary mammals like bears, large cats, etc, again the male has no role other than sperm-donor and this is even more obvious in the insect world.  The male mosquito doesn't even get a meal.  He is born, mates, dies, period.

Considering the overwhelming preference nature has for females, I think men only fought for "dominance" because of their fear and insecurity.

edited to add:

When the whole Equal Rights Amendment debate began I was fond of saying "Why would I want to lower my status to become merely equal?"

< Message edited by eyesopened -- 3/3/2009 6:38:36 AM >

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 6:43:55 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
Considering the overwhelming preference nature has for females, I think men only fought for "dominance" because of their fear and insecurity.


Great post, eyesopened. I'll add that we mustn't forget who raises the majority of the sons of humanity...

_____________________________



(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 7:04:08 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Term actually sounds like he read too much John Norman, which is surprising.


Actually it sounds more like he has been reading James Dobson, with his whole, "Men and women think differently" spiel. 

Yes, there are reasons that women's labor was worth "less" in pre-modern subsistance farming.  But it had nothing to do with the way that they "thought."  *sigh*

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 7:04:30 AM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline 		Well, humans aren't herd mammals or solitary mammals.  We're primates, and we're social primates.  We're closer to chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas.  In chimpanzee and gorilla groups, the males are definitely in charge.  Now Bonobos are interesting, the females run the show and they accomplish that with sex.  Sounds like a lot of marriages I've observed. 

Now as for Term's point of view, I don't agree.  Humans haven't evolved since the introduction of agriculture.  We haven't evolved physically or mentally from paleolithic hunter/gatherers running Mammoths off of cliffs 65,000 years ago.  We're the same people. 

As far as nuclear families go Term, I was raised in that model.  My mom stayed home and took care of the house and raised my brother and I.  My dad was as "manly" of a man that you'd ever meet.  But he never told my mom how it was going to be.  My dad didn't have to act like that, he was a MAN.  He wasn't a little boy with insecurity issues.   

(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 7:30:09 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

Well, humans aren't herd mammals or solitary mammals.  We're primates, and we're social primates.  We're closer to chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas.  In chimpanzee and gorilla groups, the males are definitely in charge.  Now Bonobos are interesting, the females run the show and they accomplish that with sex.  Sounds like a lot of marriages I've observed. 


And the chimpanzee and gorilla male dominates through intimidation by loud and often violent displays.  Sounds like a lot of marriages I've observed.

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Man/Woman equality from a different perspective - 3/3/2009 7:33:22 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline 		Males aren't entirely solidly in charge in primate groups either. It's more of a give and take. They tend to live in multiple situations but not as a harem for the benefit of some "kinglike" male, they are not a harem at all.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/femdom.html

"
All early studies in primatology focused on male dominance. One reason is that it's more visible and exciting. Also, they were all men and probably had a cultural bias that made it easier for them to see the male dominance. After a while, though, they began to see that females formed social bonds and could gang up on males. Through the 80's all serious work on female dominance was done by women primatologists.







"To a greater or lesser extent, females in these species take priority at feeding sites and control social access to other group members. An offending male who comes too close to a female or her infant is cuffed in the face or chased away, and in some cases males are relegated tot eh outskirts of the troops. These species stand in contrast to television narratives about 'central male hierarchies' and 'dominant male leaders' - Sarah Hrdy 1981, pg 59, describing female dominance
"

what tends to occur in primates is physical dominance by males, but not necessarily social dominance. the females (sisters, aunts, etc) tend to form the basis of social structure, even in primates. physical dominance is a completely different thing altogether. Term is saying that women shouldn't be in charge because they just shouldn't be, which is silly, when in the majority of animals (and even humans), they were really the basis for what became civilzation.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm

another useful link to read.

even in the single male multi female groupings, the females still form the social core. in multi-male, multi-female groupings, the alpha female retains her alpha status througout life, whereas the male must constantly fight for it. i think that shows who really is the actual dominant of the group.
the male, again, does not really make decisions, his dominance is really only in his choice of breeding partners. as the dominant male, he will breed more with more females, but he doesn't make social decisions for the group. =p the alfpha male serves a function for the females, just as they serve a purpose for him. he gets to pass on his genes, and in turn, he protects them from other males they don't like. The females also can gang up on a male that they no longer like and get rid of him.

physical dominance and social dominance are two different things.
and still, primate embryos are still inherently female, primate females still generally have higher storage of fat, what eyesopened said still holds true (and i totally agree with her assessment that many male primates assert dominance through violence and aggression. not that much different than alot of males in human society.)


also, it's interesting that eyesopned notes that it may be an odd subject for a slave to discuss, but i don't necessarily think so. i'm a generally submissive person who happens to be female, but being sub has nothing to do with being female. being heterosexual and submissive is what attracted me to a male who was dominant, but i don't believe his dominance stems directly from his maleness. =p


< Message edited by RainydayNE -- 3/3/2009 7:43:35 AM >

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Man/Woman equality from a different perspective Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.108