Is it worse for women?

[ZiL]

Originally Posted by nolla

Whoah... Good comment. You just took my mind off the genes and filled it with feminism. So, the question turns around into: How would the world be if women had the role of men in the society for, say, the last ten thousand years? Would the men now be obsessed with their looks? Would it have been even theoretically possible for a society dominated by females to survive until this age? Are there any societies anywhere that are female-dominated?

Damn, this conversation has been really something. I have had this revelation feeling for several times now.

And, yeah, I'm up for a revolution.

I had just been thinking about this today - what would the world be like if women had been in the same position as men. The question arose in my primate behavior class, while we were watching a video about the only polyandrous group of New World monkeys, lol. It is so hard to hypothesize how that would be. Later I was watching CNN for a minute and they were talking about Sarah Palin, and the host said they were about to bring in four "smart, independent and undecided" women to discuss tonight's debate. The way he said it made it sound like these types of women were something of a rare breed - women are half the population! It just drove home to me the fact that despite women making up such an equal portion of the population, interviews exclusively with a number of women are looked at as out-of-the-ordinary and usually restricted to "women's issues." Even to me, it is odd to see only women making up a panel on cable news. It's hard to imagine hypothetical situations like this when our everyday experiences and understandings of the world are still deeply tied to male-dominated history.

There are matrilineal societies, but of course matrilineality doesn't guarantee women more power, though their roles in keeping the matrilineage strong are vital. Smaller band societies tend towards more equality, I guess - there is a fairly even division of labor - with men hunting and women gathering and both being necessary for survival. Women are needed for survival and so retain a level of status. But as for female dominated societies, I can't say I've ever heard of any. If there are some, I need to stop slacking because I'm an anthropology major....

[Lucifer]

I do not have the time to read this entire thread, but I am interested to hear what the members have come up with.

I would appreciate a summary from someone who has read a majority of this thread and is also willing to bring up all the prominent thoughts.

[Mondo]

Summers' remarks on women draw fire - The Boston Globe

Do you guys think this is true?
I have certainly met women who are brilliant at math and science.

However, I have met more men with such an aptitude, is it unreasonable to say that there are more men who have an exceptionally strong aptitude in math and science than women?
Or if certain societal pressures were lifted off women- the pressure that women shouldn't pursue mathematics because it is a man's subject- would we find an equal number of men and women in the math/sciences?

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by nolla

I can agree on number two. For some reason I find it very hard to believe that success is related to genes (in this world or the one we were evolved in). I can agree , though, that being unsuccessful can sometimes be because of bad genes. So I guess it is "playing it safe" to choose a successful mate.

Either way, sure

Wait a minute. Isn't it like a statistical fact that men are the cheaters?

Not exactly. Men certainly are more known for cheating, but with genetic testing, it turns out women, who say they don't cheat, have an awful lot of children that are not with her husband.

I'm generally of the opinion that the dynamics of selection determined a lot of the male dominant societies, but there is no reason why that cannot change. Everything is changing now, really...

[ZiL]

Originally Posted by Mondo

Summers' remarks on women draw fire - The Boston Globe

Do you guys think this is true?
I have certainly met women who are brilliant at math and science.

However, I have met more men with such an aptitude, is it unreasonable to say that there are more men who have an exceptionally strong aptitude in math and science than women?
Or if certain societal pressures were lifted off women- the pressure that women shouldn't pursue mathematics because it is a man's subject- would we find an equal number of men and women in the math/sciences?

Good question. Hard to say if the number would be equal, but I'm sure there would be a surge in numbers. The advanced physics class I took in high school (2-3 years ago) had a male/female population ration of like 25:7. I wish there had been more females to balance it out, because a lot of the guys were smart but immature, so it felt like you were having to deal with the boy's club first before you could ever get down to work seriously. It wasn't an optimal environment, and if she wasn't into the subject to begin with, I could see a girl easily being turned off the idea of studying physics seriously in college. I was pretty good at physics, but I had to waste so much energy trying to get the guys in my groups to focus, that it really hurt my ability to enjoy the subject. And the fact that there were only 7 girls in the class contributed to the underlying stereotypical feeling that "maybe girls just weren't good at it." Usually a wide gender disparity in a class shouldn't contribute to feelings of inferiority, but since this particular stereotype already exists, it's kind of hard not to be reminded of it when you find yourself surrounded by a lot of males and not so many females.

But that's just my experience.

Edit: Meant to add that I saw no indication that the female students did any worse than the males on average.

[nolla]

Originally Posted by ZiL

The host said they were about to bring in four "smart, independent and undecided" women to discuss tonight's debate. The way he said it made it sound like these types of women were something of a rare breed - women are half the population! It just drove home to me the fact that despite women making up such an equal portion of the population, interviews exclusively with a number of women are looked at as out-of-the-ordinary and usually restricted to "women's issues."

Yes, this kind of attitude clearly brings out the fact that women are nowhere near being equal to men. Personally I find it ridiculous, but still can somehow understand, since feminism is really a young movement.

Originally Posted by Mondo

Summers' remarks on women draw fire - The Boston Globe

Do you guys think this is true?
I have certainly met women who are brilliant at math and science.

However, I have met more men with such an aptitude, is it unreasonable to say that there are more men who have an exceptionally strong aptitude in math and science than women?
Or if certain societal pressures were lifted off women- the pressure that women shouldn't pursue mathematics because it is a man's subject- would we find an equal number of men and women in the math/sciences?

It is silly that they are offended by the comment. There are differences between man and woman. You can see many of them with your eyes. It would be stupid to claim that the minds would be identical and made for exactly the same purposes if our bodies aren't. But, it is good to find out how big the differences are. We don't know if women aren't in the sciences because they were never expected to be.

[nolla]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Not exactly. Men certainly are more known for cheating, but with genetic testing, it turns out women, who say they don't cheat, have an awful lot of children that are not with her husband.

Really!? Now, mothers, come clean and confess.. How many bastard children do you have?

But seriously, where did you get that info? Links, please... (if it turns out true, I will never trust a woman again )

[Mitzy]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

Girls, can you settle this?: Do more girls dress and try to look good for other girls or for guys?

i think when girls dress fashionably they do it for the women. but when they throw on something sexy and skimpy, its obviously for the men.


at the same time, i dont think its a matter of trying to impress either

its about competition and self esteem

there will be always someone better
people try to top it and look better than the one that looks better than them
cycle goes on
no one will ever feel suffice

[nolla]

Originally Posted by Mitzy

at the same time, i dont think its a matter of trying to impress either

its about competition and self esteem

So, what is the prize of the competition? I don't think that women compete each other only because they love to compete. The only prizes that I can see is either the respect of other women or the admiration of men. It must be to impress someone.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by nolla

But seriously, where did you get that info? Links, please... (if it turns out true, I will never trust a woman again )

Egad, I've been cited! Give me some time, I'll get back to you

(Now I get to pray my memory isn't getting me into trouble!)