quote:

I had to go back and read my other posts to see where I mentioned natural order, I didn't remember where I said that. The fact is, I didn't. Natural order may have some scientific validity, but it becomes dreadfully hard to defend it and it creates more difference in an argument than commonality.

quote:

Each gender has it's place within the natural design, we can deny that, we can attempt to disprove it, we can try to fight it, we can even try and fool it, often accomplishing little more than fooling ourselves in the process. But nature cares little about our delusion of self importance; neither men nor women will ever be irrelevant to one another, that is nature's intent and if balance fails so then will the species.

quote:

If natural design is not the same as natural order

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In your post #15 you used the phrase "natural design."

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I'm not sure where this idea of men becoming irrelevant has come from.

Almost every man I ever spoke to talked such utter rubbish as to demonstrate irrelevance beyond all reasonable doubt.

Still, I understand they make good pets, once house broken.

E

quote:

Nature implants mental, physical and survival aspects within our DNA coding, I don't believe I know anyone that argues that. These impulses govern our ability to exist, adapt and survive in an ever-changing world. Even without technology the world would be in a state of fluctuation, perhaps at a slower pace, but it would and will change. Maybe men with their infinity to solve problems by whippin’ someone’s ass, the advent of the nuclear age and the chance to impose absolute destruction have inspired a natural evolution where the more passive nature of women are now bringing life into balance before life ceases to exist.

quote:

I don't believe that intellectually one gender of our species has the advantage over the other, on the whole. No one is always the smartest, the strongest or the best at something unless nature sees fit to design us as such. But generally there are no absolutes in life. Though it is my opinion that nature tends to code males as group leaders, concurrently it tends to code females with the capacity to be happy in a supporting role. Is that a natural order, no it's a natural inclination. Ever hear the sayings "too many Cooks spoil the broth", "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians", I think nature has heard both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nineveh

Men have been in charge for a few thousand years.  As far as we can tell prior to that society was largely matriarchal.  If there is a state of nature it is women in charge.

That's highly debatable. There's no evidence for a matriachal utopia before the politheistic "pick a daddy in the sky" religions (and the three big antiflesh desert cults those led to) took hold at all. At best you're talking about interpretations anthropologists with a feminist (or in a couple of cases, femdom) agenda have applied to the Willendorf venus, and for all anybody actually knows, that was neolithic porno rather than physical proof of a mother goddess religion. Hasn't Graves been comprehensively debunked for a long time now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

~fast reply~

No gender is ever going to become "irrelevant". We can POSSIBLY say that after thousands of years, there is an increasing amount of societal balance in terms of educational opportunities, and women's being able to control their own reproduction, chemically or socially. (ie, the female children are not left for the wolves).

I would be pleased if at some point everyone was literate, had food, water, shelter, and employment. We all need to work together for that, according to what we can each do. I would be a lousy merchant marine or cattle rancher. Lots of other folks couldn't run a business to save their souls. The way the world lives and works in changing, and everything is going to be in flux for a long while. This isn't the first time we've had sweeping worldwide changes, it's just more noticeable.

quote:

So if you want to just dismiss my comments as an excercise in semantics, that suits me just fine. Feel free to disregard my comments and move on to the next poster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildchild2sides

Many women are predatory, uncivilized and without redeeming qualities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wildchild2sides

Many women are predatory, uncivilized and without redeeming qualities.

quote:

Moreover, I beg to differ that women are passive ...

quote:

.....and lack stamina and endurance. Sometimes women decide which battles are important to fight and which ones are trivial, but even SUBMISSIVE women are not passive for the most part. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Based on the women in politics and the women on this board, god help the planet if men are becoming irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

It would be nice if it didn't indicate that men were becoming irrelevant, or that women were becoming more relevant. What would be really encouraging, was if the trend indicated that gender bias was becoming irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Based on the women in politics and the women on this board, god help the planet if men are becoming irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Based on the women in politics and the women on this board, god help the planet if men are becoming irrelevant.

oh man I am goin to get a beer and make some popcorn!  This is gonna get good!

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

I don't see the changes as being any big drama. Things are just smoothing out and settling down nearer where they should be. Men will adapt and the women that love them will help them do so.

Any fool that thinks the world is going to turn into one big bunch of pussies with no conflict or war has never worked in an environment dominated by women. There will always be conflict and war..........it will simply be more covert and less messy. There will be less obnoxious chest thumping and bragging, more knife in the back type elimination of the problem if the opposition does not see it their way.

I have seen the argument made that women would be more reluctant to send their children off to war. Might that not, if true, be an inhibition or at least a hesitation to act without further diplomatic efforts?