Why are men more independent than women?

[Coriolis]

Yes, women were denied all kind of things I never denied that. However I trully think that before pregnancy was bigger problem than it was over the last 100 years. Since deficit of roads, access to food and good room temperatures were much bigger issues. If you go thorugh my words I never said that pregnant woman are incapable of doing anything but this objectively is extra burden and for that few months woman should/needs to recieve more than it provides. (at least that is the ideal scenario). Also I know what was killing the children but I am looking at the effect and that was that more pregnancies were needed to compensate for that. What naturally places women at disadvantage, it is survivable but it is still disadvantage when compared with men. (since they don't go through anything similar)

What you wrote before was:

On the other hand women are almost immobile when pregnant

which is definitely inaccurate unless a complication has required extended bed rest, as I explained in my earlier post. Pregnancy is less likely to result in death in recent times, but modern medicine has sometimes created problems which earlier generations did not face. On balance we are better off, but it has been two steps forward, one step back. In any case, men have been more susceptible to certain illnesses, and historically have had the primary burden of warfare, so I wouldn't say men were advantaged in the area of physical well-being and longevity.

Also I think you are overlooking the wider social context. If you go just a few centuries back you have just about nothing in the terms of human rights and various conventions. Therefore despite deseases and everything women had to give birth constantly in order to make bigger collectives that will be safer. Because the collective that wasn't like that was dissadvantaged in the terms of "firepower" and regenerating numbers. Therefore once defences fell women ended up as sex slaves somewhere in the woods and because of this any sociaty that was too friendly towards women was disadvantaged from strategic point of view and probably didn't survive. Don't get me wrong I am not a fan of such social dynamics but the past was quite messed up and I am not sure that there were real alternatives at the time, since it was impossble to put everyone at the table and talk over this. I can agree that women got a pretty lousy deal in all of this but their biology was the part of why it happned, that is all what I am really saying.

I am not overlooking social context - quite the contrary. I am pointing to it as the source of the greater dependence often seen in women, rather than innate physiology or role in reproduction. Human biology could reasonably have led to any number of social arrangements that supported raising offspring and maximized health and survival. An explanation for the particular social arrangement that eventually developed in most places must therefore be found elsewhere. Hints can be found in the way you link larger families with defense needs. Most references I have seen link family size to the ability to grow, hunt, or gather sufficient food for the family/community. A good reference on this topic is Riane Eisler's book, The Chalice and the Blade[/].

See, I've had this impression that men just naturally perform at higher levels, due to innate personality tendencies, greater intellect, greater drive, etc.

Men often are seen to perform at higher levels, but there is nothing innate about it. It is because they are expected, if not required, to do so, and provided more of the means of developing that level of performance.

Women's brains are like Ne, expansive and explosive, whereas men's brains are like Ni, leaning more towards mastery and the seclusion that allow for said skills. Few women can master something, that's why throughout history, now and then, all of the GREAT people in any field were predominantly men. I'll let Nikola Tesla and sum it up.

. . . unless they aren't. This is horrendous stereotyping. Plenty of women also master things, but I suspect over the course of history, women have far less often been accorded the seclusion and independence necessary for such work. Virginia Woolf's essay "A room of one's own" touches on this reality.

Back to the topic at hand. I'd say women are less independent than men in general due to the fact that they are more likely to get free shit than men. That feeds complacency. I'm sure none of this applies to any of you hard & tuff smack-talking INTJ bitches, but that's because you're very special and not representative of the general population.

Strangely enough you have a valid point buried in here, namely the idea that not being expected to provide for oneself curries a mindset in which one feels no need to do so. This is part of why many women do not fit the classic definition of feminist. Your theory that people like me are simply special snowflakes, however, fails Occam's Razor.

 

[Edgar]

...fails Occam's Razor.

what?

 

[Tater]

eventually, everyone depends on depends!

 

[Yama]

eventually, everyone depends on depends!

heavily unnecessary photo analysis time

the "NEW!" sticker on the men's depends intertwined with the context of the thread implies that women needed the depends before the men did and the men only now have started needing them. the men were independent for longer than the women, which leads to the line of reasoning that men are more independent than women in general. it also implies that men have only recently become somewhat dependent creatures and are far more independent by nature, but the women's depends, not being "NEW!" imply that the women's dependency has been around for awhile.

~end~

 

[Virtual ghost]

What you wrote before was:

Yes, that is what I wrote and "almost" is key word in there. My only mistake is that I should have said "later stages of pregnancy" instead of just "pregnancy". However that doesn't change bottom line of my argument. The truth is that I am the guy who: walked around mountains at night, swimed across the rivers, dived in lakes, explored caves and walked through mine fields. Therefore for me the life of typical pregnant woman is close to being immobile. I don't consider or want this to be an insult, it is just that this strikes me more as true than false.

which is definitely inaccurate unless a complication has required extended bed rest, as I explained in my earlier post. Pregnancy is less likely to result in death in recent times, but modern medicine has sometimes created problems which earlier generations did not face. On balance we are better off, but it has been two steps forward, one step back. In any case, men have been more susceptible to certain illnesses, and historically have had the primary burden of warfare, so I wouldn't say men were advantaged in the area of physical well-being and longevity.

Take a look at my last paragraph for why I said those words.

This depends on the actually situation: if there is peace then women are disadvantaged, if there is war then men are disadvantaged. However if war is lost men will just die and women will go through much bigger hell. Women tend to live a few more years than men but that is separate argument from me, this isn't really related to the topic of independance. I understand that you are trying to prove that women are more than just a thing you can possess and that they are human beings. Therefore you don't have to bother with me since I am not you enemy in this regard.

I am not overlooking social context - quite the contrary. I am pointing to it as the source of the greater dependence often seen in women, rather than innate physiology or role in reproduction. Human biology could reasonably have led to any number of social arrangements that supported raising offspring and maximized health and survival. An explanation for the particular social arrangement that eventually developed in most places must therefore be found elsewhere. Hints can be found in the way you link larger families with defense needs. Most references I have seen link family size to the ability to grow, hunt, or gather sufficient food for the family/community. A good reference on this topic is Riane Eisler's book, The Chalice and the Blade[/].

Yes, the past could have gone better for women but as they say "it is easy to be a general after the battle". Until about 100 years ago everything was pretty much "resource grab" and fight for survival, so that kind of a deal was "unrealistic". I would not mind such history but what I was trying to say is that this is simply unrealistic expectation for those times, it was litterally PTSD world. Also to place my card openely: the longest war in my country's history lasted for staggering 400 years of almost none stop skirmishes, raids and anything similar to that. Therefore in that case this means that if you don't turn women into "baby machines" you will find yourself completely outgunned down the road. Especially if you are being invaded by one of largest empires of that time, which was ruled by very expansionalist religion. This was messed up situation but the choice was basically simple: baby machines or surrender.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I think it's 100% cultural. I was very independent and detached as a child, and I ended up being forced into therapy because of it. Society teaches boys to be innovative, outspoken, goal-oriented, and assertive. It teaches girls to be social, friendly, family-oriented, and modest. People who don't fit into these traditional roles are shamed into changing their behavior by being called names (for boys, "fruity," "flamboyant," "oversensitive," or even "gay." For girls, "cold," "bitch," "weird," etc.) I don't think this will change anytime soon. Although it might seem like we're in an age of acceptance, especially in regard to breaking gender norms, we're really not. For every open-minded millennial on tumblr/reddit, there is an anti-feminist or hypergamist wanting to set us back 100 years. They're just getting less publicity.

The fact that this was posted in the spirituality/religion section makes me think that the OP feels differently.

 

[Habba]

How on earth is it possible to be too independent? It sounds like incredible strength of character.

I am too independent. Ever since I got bullied through the elementary school, I learned to survive on my own without having anyone to talk to. Thanks to that, I have very strong sense of my self, my feelings and my persona. I can take an outsider look on myself, and make modifications to myself, without external input. Even my psychiatrist told me on the first session that I'm highly self-reflective. I can face all the obstacles in my life with calmness and clear-headedness.

On the other hand, I never learned how to depend on others. I can't share by problems with others. I have very little tools to condole and comfort another human being. I can't feel much empathy towards people's problems (I can only think of solutions).


As for the OP, I think that the premise is correct, but I have no data on it and can be proven wrong (please do if you can).

It's really difficult to say how much biology affects our society, instead of culture (and what part did the biology play on forming that culture), but I have to say it plays a major role. Way back when evolution was still making rapid progress (passing on your genes wasn't as simple as it is today), independentness was more important for males. As men are able to have more offsprings than women, the competition for mates is tougher for males. Therefore other males were more of a threat to males that other females were for females. Such an environment favors the competitive, ruthless and independent.

Note that the "love hormone" oxytocin can make men more docile and submissive towards their partner, and thus hinder the innate independentness.
But let it also be said that independentness has been needlessly attributed for males, and that the society needs to be more tolerable of the "independent women".

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

I am too independent. Ever since I got bullied through the elementary school, I learned to survive on my own without having anyone to talk to. Thanks to that, I have very strong sense of my self, my feelings and my persona. I can take an outsider look on myself, and make modifications to myself, without external input. Even my psychiatrist told me on the first session that I'm highly self-reflective. I can face all the obstacles in my life with calmness and clear-headedness.

On the other hand, I never learned how to depend on others. I can't share by problems with others. I have very little tools to condole and comfort another human being. I can't feel much empathy towards people's problems (I can only think of solutions).

Again, I don't see how any of that is a bad thing (not the being bullied part, obviously....though I know I wish I had been). Surely it's more respectable, more intelligent, nobler and stronger to face all of life's problems as an island, without ever having a confidant or friend? Only weak people should ever need those.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, that is what I wrote and "almost" is key word in there. My only mistake is that I should have said "later stages of pregnancy" instead of just "pregnancy". However that doesn't change bottom line of my argument. The truth is that I am the guy who: walked around mountains at night, swimed across the rivers, dived in lakes, explored caves and walked through mine fields. Therefore for me the life of typical pregnant woman is close to being immobile. I don't consider or want this to be an insult, it is just that this strikes me more as true than false.

I overlooked this comment. The lives of most men and non-pregnant women would seem sedentary compared with the spectrum of activities you have engaged in. It is important to understand that historically all but the wealthiest women did hard work of one kind or another throughout their pregnancies. Even today, accounts of refugees fleeing places like Syria include many women travelling in late pregnancy, often delivering their babies in migrant camps or even at sea. The relative (physical) inactivity many modern women exhibit while pregnant is itself part of a culture that has become counterproductively risk-averse, as well as nosy and judgmental. Modern people, including women, even while pregnant, are capable of far more than they usually undertake.

This depends on the actually situation: if there is peace then women are disadvantaged, if there is war then men are disadvantaged. However if war is lost men will just die and women will go through much bigger hell. Women tend to live a few more years than men but that is separate argument from me, this isn't really related to the topic of independance. I understand that you are trying to prove that women are more than just a thing you can possess and that they are human beings. Therefore you don't have to bother with me since I am not you enemy in this regard.

I don't need to prove that women are human beings. That is self-evident. I am trying to drill through the many layers of social conditioning and expectations to get at what really was necessary in earlier times, what really is necessary now, and what really is determined - or at least strongly suggested - by biology.

Therefore in that case this means that if you don't turn women into "baby machines" you will find yourself completely outgunned down the road. Especially if you are being invaded by one of largest empires of that time, which was ruled by very expansionalist religion. This was messed up situation but the choice was basically simple: baby machines or surrender.

Assume you are right, for the sake of discussion. One side uses women primarily for reproduction. The other doesn't, leaving women free to educate themselves and focus on developing other skills and talents - while still having a few children along the way. The greater human resources enable that side to win the technology war and defeat the enemy although outnumbered. There is more than one way to skin a cat. (Yes, that's an idiomatic expression, too. I am not advocating animal cruelty.)

I am too independent. Ever since I got bullied through the elementary school, I learned to survive on my own without having anyone to talk to. Thanks to that, I have very strong sense of my self, my feelings and my persona. I can take an outsider look on myself, and make modifications to myself, without external input. Even my psychiatrist told me on the first session that I'm highly self-reflective. I can face all the obstacles in my life with calmness and clear-headedness.

On the other hand, I never learned how to depend on others. I can't share by problems with others. I have very little tools to condole and comfort another human being. I can't feel much empathy towards people's problems (I can only think of solutions).

This has been my experience as well. I don't think either gender has a monopoly on it.

The fact that this was posted in the spirituality/religion section makes me think that the OP feels differently.

The subforum placement reminds me that religion has probably been a singularly significant factor in perpetuating female dependence and submission. "Religions of the book" have certainly been that way, and polytheistic faiths that at least had a place for the female divine became much more so through interaction with monotheists.

 

[violet_crown]

The main question: why? It is purely cultural? Or is there some innate reason for it?

Oh we're not less independent. We just want you to think that we need you so that you don't ask questions when we take all of your money, your hopes, your dreams and the best years of your life. Ultimately leaving you a bitter, broken shell of the man that you once were, as we skitter off with the hotter dude with a bigger dick we were fucking the entire time.

I'm speaking for all women right now because this literally applies to all of us.

Also, you will still owe us child support because you're supposed to provide for us and the kids stuff.

 

[erm]

Also, you will still owe us child support because you're supposed to provide for us and the kids stuff.

Yeah it's totally going to be spent on the kid

 

[Firebird 8118]

heavily unnecessary photo analysis time

Lost it at this and the original post quoted

 

[violet_crown]

Yeah it's totally going to be spent on the kid

Of course! The child depends on you as a man as well. Just like a woman.

That's why we'll leave you with nothing.

 

[Cellmold]

As usual no one informed me!

Admittedly I have further issues that mean I tend towards dependency.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I overlooked this comment. The lives of most men and non-pregnant women would seem sedentary compared with the spectrum of activities you have engaged in. It is important to understand that historically all but the wealthiest women did hard work of one kind or another throughout their pregnancies. Even today, accounts of refugees fleeing places like Syria include many women travelling in late pregnancy, often delivering their babies in migrant camps or even at sea. The relative (physical) inactivity many modern women exhibit while pregnant is itself part of a culture that has become counterproductively risk-averse, as well as nosy and judgmental. Modern people, including women, even while pregnant, are capable of far more than they usually undertake.


I don't need to prove that women are human beings. That is self-evident. I am trying to drill through the many layers of social conditioning and expectations to get at what really was necessary in earlier times, what really is necessary now, and what really is determined - or at least strongly suggested - by biology.

I never claimed they are immobile completely but they are surely less mobile in that stage and in a way it is good that they don't take too many risks. Especially if modern technology can fill in the hole. I can understand why this frustrates you but the fact is that during pregnancy mobility is lowered. Especially if you count in all those things that I mentioned that I have done. I have nothing against women rights but I do think they are more likely to need protection or extra supplies in some cases.

Assume you are right, for the sake of discussion. One side uses women primarily for reproduction. The other doesn't, leaving women free to educate themselves and focus on developing other skills and talents - while still having a few children along the way. The greater human resources enable that side to win the technology war and defeat the enemy although outnumbered. There is more than one way to skin a cat. (Yes, that's an idiomatic expression, too. I am not advocating animal cruelty.)

No. (for me this is actually totally separate argument since in the past there was different dynamic)

I don't think you understand the scale of the enemy that came on our door. Therefore I will give you this map to present my case more clearly and how expansionalistic they really were.

Therefore since you are American I don't think that you understand how it is like to fight the country that is 30 times larger than yours. What means that if they divert only 20% of their power they still have 6:1. Also this was before public education became a standard and that means that we had to divert extra resources into that, while we had to divert everything into war effort and related subjects. On the other hand invading empire could have a few think thanks and still produce technology that would match everything we invent. Since at the time scientific method was not fully invented yet and it was easy to keep up in technology.


I agree that the whole situation is stupid but I don't think we really had a choice.

 

[indra]

Because they're sociopaths.

 

[Crabs]

Because they're sociopaths.

I thought you liked dudes?

 

[indra]

I thought you liked dudes?

I don't think my post precludes any preference...

 

[kyuuei]

"and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach)"

... For the record. This method works like 0% of the time. Humans, by nature, degrade, become weak, and unable to care for themselves. I cannot tell you how many men I care for that... thought they were 'well' because they never bothered going to the docs, or getting proper care, etc, and all at once their diseases/dysfunctions/disorders accumulate. There are so many men who would be dead, amputated, or dying actively without their wives nagging them to care for themselves. The women who tend to act this way as well? Same results.

No one is 100% independent all the time. I think women, usually stuck with caring for others, are more sensitive to it and open about it than men are, who tend to opt out and tend to be the ones cared for.. so, naturally, they're less likely to speak out for it in their youth and prime.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

Oh we're not less independent. We just want you to think that we need you so that you don't ask questions when we take all of your money, your hopes, your dreams and the best years of your life. Ultimately leaving you a bitter, broken shell of the man that you once were, as we skitter off with the hotter dude with a bigger dick we were fucking the entire time.

I'm speaking for all women right now because this literally applies to all of us.

Also, you will still owe us child support because you're supposed to provide for us and the kids stuff.

LOL

You know I'm a girl, right?

"and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach)"

... For the record. This method works like 0% of the time. Humans, by nature, degrade, become weak, and unable to care for themselves. I cannot tell you how many men I care for that... thought they were 'well' because they never bothered going to the docs, or getting proper care, etc, and all at once their diseases/dysfunctions/disorders accumulate. There are so many men who would be dead, amputated, or dying actively without their wives nagging them to care for themselves. The women who tend to act this way as well? Same results.

No one is 100% independent all the time. I think women, usually stuck with caring for others, are more sensitive to it and open about it than men are, who tend to opt out and tend to be the ones cared for.. so, naturally, they're less likely to speak out for it in their youth and prime.

I was thinking more in economic and social terms rather than health when I first wrote that. Things like never confiding in people or talking about personal issues no matter how pressing, or how 65% of welfare recipients are women.

The bit in bold kind of struck me though - that happened to my dad. Literally the one and only time I saw my parents fight was likely my mom yelling at him to go see a doctor, because bleeding moles, severe food reactions, and god knows what else was going on with him before he died is not normal. But he insisted on toughing it out, insisted everything was fine, until he spent two months decaying in a hospital bed before dying. I apparently have the same mindset of "It's not a big deal, maybe it will go away on its own" that irritates my mother to no end.