Why are men more independent than women?

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

nvm

 

[Amargith]

When modern humans developed bipedal locomotion, or the ability to walk upright, it decreased the size of the bony birth-canal, increasing the difficulty of childbirth and requiring assistance from other members of species during childbirth. Complications in human childbirth are more frequent compared to non-human primates, who manage to give birth alone with relatively little difficulty. Also, considering humans generally birth only one offspring at a time means the child requires additional protection.

Tl;dr Human evolution made it so humans need other humans to survive and thrive.

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.

I believe it is also theorised that once mankind started walking upright, women had to carry their infants in their arms (instead of having them hold on, like other apes - besides the size of our head due to our bulky brains made it impossible to hold up their own heads anyways).

In response to that, women's cycles became 'mysterious'. Iow, they stopped clearly advertising when they were 'in heat', forcing men to 'guard them' non-stop instead of just those few days she was sexually receptive and fertile. fThis way, they'd stick around to bond and help take care of and protect their offspring, since the woman no longer had that option with her hands being literally full - making fighting or fleeing a lot harder and therefore decreased the chance of her survival as well as the offspring's.

In essence, it's why we pair bond and for that matter why male testicles are smaller than those of a chimp (who are wildly promiscuous), but bigger than those of a gorilla (who has less competition and an entire harem to himself).

-ish

 

[Coriolis]

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.

Well, I find any playing fast and loose with the facts rather frustrating, as well as extrapolating conclusions that they do not support. The fact that something is plausible given a set of circumstances makes it neither inevitable nor optimal. Pregnancy lowers mobility, just as many conditions that affect men as well as women do. The greatest risks surrounding pregnancy and childbirth have little to do with mobility levels, but rather with infection and nutrition. One might even argue that a tendency of women to be overall more risk averse means they are less likely than men to be injured doing stupid things. Might be a wash. In a defensive strategy designed to exploit the strengths more often exhibited by men, it is not surprising that women will need to rely on those men for defense. That is not the only way to provide for the common defense, though.

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.

But that is the point. That "different dynamic" was not required by strictly biological considerations. I also doubt the ability of the Ottoman empire to exploit anywhere near the full spectrum of population indicated. The area is just too large, and too diverse. Your 20% figure is likely more accurate, and parallels the ratio of sides in other conflicts where the smaller population won, such as the war between Japan and Russia in the early 20th century, and even the American Revolution (though the Atlantic was a significant help). In less traditional warfare, consider too how both the Roman and British empires fell apart, despite having significant numbers on their side.

Also, don't underestimate the ability of technology to change the course of war, even before what is generally recognized as the avent of the scientific method. The English longbow helped turn the tide of the Hundred Years' War, though of course French tactics eventually evolved to compensate. Might a woman have devised such a weapon even earlier, perhaps for a brother or father with the strength to wield it to good effect? For all we know one did, but the idea was discounted because she was "just a woman". We will never know how many inventions and other good ideas never came to light because of the gender (or race, religion, disability, etc.) of their creator.

I believe it is also theorised that once mankind started walking upright, women had to carry their infants in their arms (instead of having them hold on, like other apes - besides the size of our head due to our bulky brains made it impossible to hold up their own heads anyways).

That lasted until women figured out how to strap babies to their backs, or carry them in slings, as many parents do now. The Maya wrap is very low-tech, probably makeable with very primitive resources.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, I find any playing fast and loose with the facts rather frustrating, as well as extrapolating conclusions that they do not support. The fact that something is plausible given a set of circumstances makes it neither inevitable nor optimal. Pregnancy lowers mobility, just as many conditions that affect men as well as women do. The greatest risks surrounding pregnancy and childbirth have little to do with mobility levels, but rather with infection and nutrition. One might even argue that a tendency of women to be overall less risk averse means they are less likely than men to be injured doing stupid things. Might be a wash. In a defensive strategy designed to exploit the strengths more often exhibited by men, it is not surprising that women will need to rely on those men for defense. That is not the only way to provide for the common defense, though.

I am not even sure what you are trying to prove ? I am not even anti women rights person.

I would even dare to say that that men are more free because they are more expendable, 1000 women and 500 men is probably more stabile then 1000 men and 500 women. Also I get the impression that you are not getting the full argument about pregancy. Just a 200 years ago it was totally normal to die at the age of 25 or 30, what means that you have only about 10 years to born and rise your children. You need 2 just for reproduction minimum, every third pregnancy was resulting in miscarriage, deformed child or death of mother, plus you need at least 2 more for war effort or accidents/deseases. What implys that women should have been pregnant at least half of their adult life. What means they should be carefuly protected since death of just one woman places extra burden on all the other women, in order to compensate. Therefore if a woman decides to do her own thing that means that you have to treat her as dead and push others even further in order to compensate.


Today technology can make genders equal and that is probably good idea. However biologically men are somewhat more designed to survive in the wilderness on their own. Therefore all traditional cultures that later showed up pushed this into even bigger difference for various reasons. (war and conquest was one of them)

But that is the point. That "different dynamic" was not required by strictly biological considerations. I also doubt the ability of the Ottoman empire to exploit anywhere near the full spectrum of population indicated. The area is just too large, and too diverse. Your 20% figure is likely more accurate, and parallels the ratio of sides in other conflicts where the smaller population won, such as the war between Japan and Russia in the early 20th century, and even the American Revolution (though the Atlantic was a significant help). In less traditional warfare, consider too how both the Roman and British empires fell apart, despite having significant numbers on their side.

Also, don't underestimate the ability of technology to change the course of war, even before what is generally recognized as the avent of the scientific method. The English longbow helped turn the tide of the Hundred Years' War, though of course French tactics eventually evolved to compensate. Might a woman have devised such a weapon even earlier, perhaps for a brother or father with the strength to wield it to good effect? For all we know one did, but the idea was discounted because she was "just a woman". We will never know how many inventions and other good ideas never came to light because of the gender (or race, religion, disability, etc.) of their creator.

That depends on how you define biological. Male need for conquest is biological in nature, it can be perverted in very dark ways for extra horror, but the basis is biological. Also what happned in 20th century is irrelevant since here you already have technology/science that gives you maneuvering space. I am talking about war when you had to fight opponents much more directly, therefore being outnumbered just 2:1 was a huge problem.

Yes, technology can change the course of war, there is not doubt about it. However it is possible to have strong progress of technolgy or military technology without giving women too much rights. After all better "use" of women is that they create someone who will actually use that technology in numbers, what is needed to provide the full desired effect. Especially because if you treat women as baby machines you also get much more people who can be inventors and you don't have to fear population decline. Since you have necessary minimum of 5 pregancies per woman.


I am not defending treaditional gender roles, I am simply trying to point out why history looks as it looks.

 

[wolfy]

Lol, this is kind of funny.

I think it is because men are awesome.

 

[kyuuei]

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.

I'm super bias, but I think everything comes down to health.

Particularly, men are super awful at getting mental health help, and have a fear of being physically unhealthy which makes them avoid getting health care (an awfully stupidly vicious cycle as most things treated early are far better outcome wise)...

But think about it. Health ties closely into economic and social terms. Men don't want to be seen as weak, so they don't go to the doc's. They're the breadwinners, so they keep working even when they ache and pain. Much as the world is changing, it is overwhelmingly still the case in many lives in developed countries. Women who depend on men have a lot more to lose by not actively caring for those around them--particularly their spouses. Their stability, and income, and the-guy-that-fixes-things, the father of their children, etc. So, it means a lot more to the woman for their man to survive... for some reason, only very recently have men been more involved in their own healthcare.

It took us 10 years to convince my father to go to the VA for healthcare. He insisted nothing was wrong with him enough to go. Now he's in the thralls of getting care, and basically throwing a temper tantrum because of it, because turns out you can't eat whatever you want your whole life and be overweight without getting diabetes, and you can't do high stress missions without bringing up some predisposition to depression. While *we* ALL saw that from the family's standpoint, he didn't see it in himself at all. Not one bit. I knew it was a shitstorm waiting to happen, and he just kept being in denial and ignoring it hoping desperately it would go away on its own. It never does.

I think one of the major reasons women are becoming more independent are for similar reasons I am... because 1. They're sick of spending all their time/energy focusing on things men should be fucking men about and doing for themselves because it is a HUMAN responsibility to care for one's self when you can. and 2. There's a whole world out there available to us.. in times past, we were pretty limited in our fields.. now? We can do whatever tf we want.. and we want to do those things.. and those things require us taking care of ourselves.. which we're pretty good at doing, we've been taking care of others for a very long time.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm super bias, but I think everything comes down to health.


But think about it. Health ties closely into economic and social terms. Men don't want to be seen as weak, so they don't go to the doc's. They're the breadwinners, so they keep working even when they ache and pain. Much as the world is changing, it is overwhelmingly still the case in many lives in developed countries. Women who depend on men have a lot more to lose by not actively caring for those around them--particularly their spouses. Their stability, and income, and the-guy-that-fixes-things, the father of their children, etc. So, it means a lot more to the woman for their man to survive... for some reason, only very recently have men been more involved in their own healthcare.

I don't want to insult anyone but I would say this is more of a American/Capitalism thing than men thing. When going to a doctor will cost you nothing extra there is no objective reason not to go and therefore if you don't do that this means you are just afraid of the doctors ... aka crybaby.

 

[Lord Lavender]

I think men in general (i am one so i can speak for myself at least and I have observed male relatives and friends) are prideful creatures in general to a massive fault. Even in the UK where I live with free healthcare men are still reluctant to go visit the doctor out of some form of pride of being able to manage yourself. Same principle as men refusing to ask directions. I would imagine however that if it cost money to go to the doctor that would be another factor in not going.

 

[Hawthorne]

Maybe it's a Southern thing but I've noticed that boys and girls are generally raised to be (in)dependent in different ways. Boys seem to be raised with the expectation to provide for themselves at the expense of learning how to "take care of themselves" while the opposite seems true for the girls.

I wonder if that also contributes to how early people get married here since it spares people the necessity of having the learn the other set of skills to be truly independent.

 

[Norrsken]

I've met independent people all across the gender board. It's a personality trait more so than a gender based behavior, I'd say.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[kyuuei]

I don't want to insult anyone but I would say this is more of a American/Capitalism thing than men thing. When going to a doctor will cost you nothing extra there is no objective reason not to go and therefore if you don't do that this means you are just afraid of the doctors ... aka crybaby.

I would agree, but even in other countries I've gone to, it seems overwhelmingly that men are nagged into going to get things cared for instead of assuming they'll tough it out. I hear it from their women more often than not. But I think having to pay for care definitely contributes.. which brings me full circle to the OP's point: women are far more likely to vote and want things that help Everyone because they're more likely to have to care for those people.

 

[Yuurei]

Oh damn, health and independance. This is a pretty big nerve for me. Like huge...dangling like a branch off my head. Cats follow me around trying to grab at it.

I grew up with an abusive Grandmother who would tell me everyday that I would never be independant because of my health problems ( she is actually crazy. She LOVES that I have limitations, she LOVES it when I fail and everytime I get news that I have some new injury for which I need another surgery, or have even more limitations, I swear she sees angels singing and praises the Lord for another blessing) She would tell me I was incompitent, that I literally was incapable of living on my own.
For fuck sake when I was 24 she hired a baby sitter and pre-made food because she didn't want me to touch the stove-I've been a great cook since I was about 14 btw- I would ask her to teach me" No,no you wont learn! You're just incapable!"
All I ever dreamed of was living on my own. When I was finally able to, it was instant, innate. I don't where Or how I developed them, but I had and still have more basic life skills and street smarts than anyone I have never known.

Here is where I strongly agree about the point about Capitalism: I am one of the most independtant people I know. Left alone in the middle of a city with no phone/no money I'd find a way home. I often forget my key card in the scary part of Seattle at 3am..I'd fine a way in my appartment. I'm the one who has to talk to people on the phone or order food at restaurants, I guess you could say I am the liason to the outside world for my socially-inept friends. When my guy friends lose thier shit because something has gone slighty off-plan I am the one tells them to calm down and comes up with a solution. I make sure eberyone has food, I do the home mantenance and I get things done when they need to be done and I'm pretty sure I'd outlast everyone I know in thier fantasy of a zombie apocalypse and it makes sense, I am an ENTJ/8w7first, an immortal lotus flower second, an artist third, the world's shittiest typist fourth...a bunch of other shit and then a disabled person like tenth or something.

So what this means is that I more than capable of taking care of myself and everyone I know...in every way but financially. I am not "financially independant" which in this rediculous extreme of capitalism that we have become means that I "am not independant at all." I am useless, a burdan, a leech who is doomed to failure because why do I deserve anything if I am not paying taxes?"

In a country where you can-and are encouraged-to just buy everything, including services, and people to do things you do not want to- independance, skills; life, crafting or otherwise are not important. All that's important is having the money to have someone else do everything for you.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would agree, but even in other countries I've gone to, it seems overwhelmingly that men are nagged into going to get things cared for instead of assuming they'll tough it out. I hear it from their women more often than not. But I think having to pay for care definitely contributes.. which brings me full circle to the OP's point: women are far more likely to vote and want things that help Everyone because they're more likely to have to care for those people.

Well, my post was half joke as you can notice.
However I don't see that much of a difference between men and women regarding this. The only real difference I can notice is in age 15 to 30.
But my country has pretty approachable healthcare system that was here long before market based economy, so we are to the left more than most western countries, not just USA. I mean the approachable part is the case in urban areas and if you don't have some very rare medical problem.


Over the last 100 years this place changed 6 political system and was devastated for 3 times in large wars. Therefore everyone here has a "survivor streak" to some degree.

 

[Ursa]

I don't want to insult anyone but I would say this is more of a American/Capitalism thing than men thing. When going to a doctor will cost you nothing extra there is no objective reason not to go and therefore if you don't do that this means you are just afraid of the doctors ... aka crybaby.

A good objective reason not to see the doctor is if the doctor is malpracticing. It isn't always easy to find a doctor who specializes and takes your insurances either.

 

[Coriolis]

I am not even sure what you are trying to prove ? I am not even anti women rights person.

I would even dare to say that that men are more free because they are more expendable, 1000 women and 500 men is probably more stabile then 1000 men and 500 women. Also I get the impression that you are not getting the full argument about pregancy. Just a 200 years ago it was totally normal to die at the age of 25 or 30, what means that you have only about 10 years to born and rise your children. You need 2 just for reproduction minimum, every third pregnancy was resulting in miscarriage, deformed child or death of mother, plus you need at least 2 more for war effort or accidents/deseases. What implys that women should have been pregnant at least half of their adult life. What means they should be carefuly protected since death of just one woman places extra burden on all the other women, in order to compensate. Therefore if a woman decides to do her own thing that means that you have to treat her as dead and push others even further in order to compensate.


Today technology can make genders equal and that is probably good idea. However biologically men are somewhat more designed to survive in the wilderness on their own. Therefore all traditional cultures that later showed up pushed this into even bigger difference for various reasons. (war and conquest was one of them)

That depends on how you define biological. Male need for conquest is biological in nature, it can be perverted in very dark ways for extra horror, but the basis is biological. Also what happned in 20th century is irrelevant since here you already have technology/science that gives you maneuvering space. I am talking about war when you had to fight opponents much more directly, therefore being outnumbered just 2:1 was a huge problem.

Yes, technology can change the course of war, there is not doubt about it. However it is possible to have strong progress of technolgy or military technology without giving women too much rights. After all better "use" of women is that they create someone who will actually use that technology in numbers, what is needed to provide the full desired effect. Especially because if you treat women as baby machines you also get much more people who can be inventors and you don't have to fear population decline. Since you have necessary minimum of 5 pregancies per woman.


I am not defending treaditional gender roles, I am simply trying to point out why history looks as it looks.

But that's just it: what you describe is indeed how history looks, but it is not required by biology, or much of anything else. Biological necessities like reproduction are consistent with many ways of ordering society. What you are overlooking about pregnancy is that is a temporary (if frequent) physical condition and not a full time job. Healthy pregnant women do all sorts of things while pregnant, in fact usually most things they do while not pregnant. This was especially true in earlier times due to the sheer amount of work needing to be done.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 20th century, as the only example of warfare I provided that fell within that period was the war between Russia and Japan. In any case, a society that forgoes the creative contributions of half its population is operating with one hand tied behind its back. If you want to justify the historical state of affairs based on biology and evolution, it is worth noting that, if all the species needed from women was the ability to bear children, they would not have such a broad range of other abilities, most on a par with men, a few exceeding men.

So to get back to the thread topic, women on average will often demonstrate less independence than men, but that is how they have been raised. That is NOT the same thing as saying it is a biological imperative, or even a good idea.

 

[Ursa]

Today technology can make genders equal and that is probably good idea. However biologically men are somewhat more designed to survive in the wilderness on their own. Therefore all traditional cultures that later showed up pushed this into even bigger difference for various reasons. (war and conquest was one of them)

Do you go to a gym? Have you seen women weight-training there? Women are every bit as capable of swinging axes and snapping necks as men are. I weight train. I know. The media and culture here just refuses to think that way and so refuses to grant coverage to it. Instead, women are told to be skinny and vulnerable, so they neglect their muscular health and get weak. If muscular women were a fad, the media would be all over it, the research would be flowing and muscle babes would be everywhere. That men are stronger and are better survivors is just misinformation propagated by the media and fitness community because they think no one is interested in muscular, strong women. It's bullshit. And it's too bad that this hogwash contributes to more women not weight training, which contributes to less coverage and less interest. But it IS possible. Women CAN be strong. I've seen it, I live it. It's all in the reps, sets and protein intake.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as well. If a woman were to get separated from her group, she would have less likelihood of producing offspring and propagating the species. But she'd have a much higher likelihood if she could eat enough protein and get strong.

That depends on how you define biological. Male need for conquest is biological in nature, it can be perverted in very dark ways for extra horror, but the basis is biological.

If a matriarchal society's resources were in danger, what do you think they would do? Hold hands and sing? No, they'd go to war over the resources. I think a lot of this men vs women talk is discussing traits that belong to everyone, when pushed.

 

[Yuurei]

I don't want to insult anyone but I would say this is more of a American/Capitalism thing than men thing. When going to a doctor will cost you nothing extra there is no objective reason not to go and therefore if you don't do that this means you are just afraid of the doctors ... aka crybaby.

The healthcare industry is already bursting at the seems with who people who really don't need to be there-who would be fine if they'd just change thier life styles- or have very insignificant issues that will go away with time.
Many of which are very sue-happy and lawsuits are what make it nigh impossible for those who really need help to get it.
People in the U.S. are trained to be obsessed with thier health problems, no matter how insigificant. No doubt as another side effect of capitalism-the pharmaceutical industry, like every other powerful multi-billion dollar entity cares only for profit and brainwashing the entire populace to be terrified of every ache and pain than that is a very small price to pay.

...and that is why I do not go to the Dr. Why should I add to the glut of patients, exauhstion of already over-worked nurses and unnessecery cost to tax payers when I already know that there is nothing that can be done for me? It's just be a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

TBH, I consider most people to be " cry babies" but I am self-aware enough to realize that my views on these things are a little skewed. Indo stand by claim that there are too many people in the healthcare system but things do happen. I'm strongly in support of first aid and sports med being mandatory throughout school ( with updated classes and liscences every few years) so that people will be able to treat thier own common injuries or at least know when something is series enough to know when to a Dr. visit is nessecery.

 

[Yuurei]

Do you go to a gym? Have you seen women weight-training there? Women are every bit as capable of swinging axes and snapping necks as men are. I weight train. I know. The media and culture here just refuses to think that way and so refuses to grant coverage to it. Instead, women are told to be skinny and vulnerable, so they neglect their muscular health and get weak. If muscular women were a fad, the media would be all over it, the research would be flowing and muscle babes would be everywhere. That men are stronger and are better survivors is just misinformation propagated by the media and fitness community because they think no one is interested in muscular, strong women. It's bullshit. And it's too bad that this hogwash contributes to more women not weight training, which contributes to less coverage and less interest. But it IS possible. Women CAN be strong. I've seen it, I live it. It's all in the reps, sets and protein intake.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as well. If a woman were to get separated from her group, she would have less likelihood of producing offspring and propagating the species. But she'd have a much higher likelihood if she could eat enough protein and get strong.



If a matriarchal society's resources were in danger, what do you think they would do? Hold hands and sing? No, they'd go to war over the resources. I think a lot of this men vs women talk is discussing traits that belong to everyone, when pushed.

A matriarchial society would be much less likely to run out of resources. Nit only in the pressempuous ( but possibly somewhat accurate) idea that a society run by woman might be lest capitalistic and greecy, but because such a society would take much longer to become overcrowded.
Most woman do not want to have a lot of children. It's a burden on them, especially as they get olderage.
The reason third world families tend to be much larger is not only due to the idea that " more of them will die" but that so many of those countries are incredibly sexist and give women no say in anything. If her husbands wants twelve children, he gets twelve chidren. It's unlike the woman would have so money of her iwn accord.

Secondly, a matriarchy would most likely have many more options and looser regulations for abortian/birth control.

Not arguing against your ideathat woman would fight. I think that insignificant squablings and dramatic nonsense would occure MORE often but serious and deadly contfrontations or international incidents would be fewer.

 

[Ursa]

A matriarchial society would be much less likely to run out of resources. Nit only in the pressempuous ( but possibly somewhat accurate) idea that a society run by woman might be lest capitalistic and greecy, but because such a society would take much longer to become overcrowded.
Most woman do not want to have a lot of children. It's a burden on them, especially as they get olderage.
The reason third world families tend to be much larger is not only due to the idea that " more of them will die" but that so many of those countries are incredibly sexist and give women no say in anything. If her husbands wants twelve children, he gets twelve chidren. It's unlike the woman would have so money of her iwn accord.

Secondly, a matriarchy would most likely have many more options and looser regulations for abortian/birth control.

Not arguing against your ideathat woman would fight. I think that insignificant squablings and dramatic nonsense would occure MORE often but serious and deadly contfrontations or international incidents would be fewer.

What is your evidence for these conclusions? It's total speculation. Where are the studies?

I respectfully disagree that a matriarchal society is less likely to run out of resources. Resources depend on a host of factors including community but also location and opposition. If the location allows sparse resources? If you start out in the desert and the other guys start out in the lush highlands? If someone forcibly takes them? If someone already controls them?

Dramatic squabbles - what evidence? Men squabble over stupid shit too, like football games and fried chicken. Totally unnecessary to survival. Being stupid and dramatic isn't related to gender. It's just that gender stereotypes want people to think that women are nonsensical when women are just as stupid (or smart) as men are.