2 ms·

Summary: Men are both better and worst than women. They are most at the top and also the most at the bottom. More men in CEO position and also more men in pri

by chegra 16y ago

Summary: Men are both better and worst than women. They are most at the top and also the most at the bottom. More men in CEO position and also more men in prison. He tied in the fact that a society needs as many womb as possible and a few penis would do the job. Basically, saying the more people in a society the stronger it is. With this fact men basically are expendable, thus encouraged by society to participate in high risk endeavors. With high risk comes high reward. Hence a few successful men at the top. Also, he points to the fact men have lots of shallow relationship while women value intimate relationship. But having a many shallow relationship allows men be more innovative since concepts are passed between then quicker compared to women. Women would form small groups of intimate relationship while men will form large group. With large group emerges synergy and the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Hence, men form cultural things like religion, universities, sport teams, etc. What comes with forming and creating them is men dominate them. Also, the system men set up are design that only a few can be rewarded and recognized. There wasn't no real conspiracy by men to dominate.

joe_the_user 16y ago
There wasn't no real conspiracy by men to dominate. "There was no conspiracy" theory seems to have become as problematic today as all-embracing-conspiracy-theories. In any social species, subgroups with common interests has colluded to different degrees. The collusion has been more effective when the group had dominant social power. Many societies have strictures which aim to keep women in-line and faithful to their husbands. It rather clear this is organized in the interests of the husbands (and not in the interests of the handsome vagabonds passing through...). One can be certain there have been many overt and implicit conspiracies among groups of men as well as among groups of women, now and through-out history. Just not a single one since men and women are each members of other groups as well.
- Confusion 16y ago
  Emergent collusion due to groups of people sharing a goal is not equivalent to a conspiracy. There is no such thing as an implicit conspiracy: that's a contradiction in terminis. Similarly, a group of men conspiring to do something is not equivalent to a conspiracy for male domination. It's usually a conspiracy for their domination; their maleness is incidental.

by chegra 16y ago

joe_the_user 16y ago

There wasn't no real conspiracy by men to dominate. "There was no conspiracy" theory seems to have become as problematic today as all-embracing-conspiracy-theories. In any social species, subgroups with common interests has colluded to different degrees. The collusion has been more effective when the group had dominant social power. Many societies have strictures which aim to keep women in-line and faithful to their husbands. It rather clear this is organized in the interests of the husbands (and not in the interests of the handsome vagabonds passing through...). One can be certain there have been many overt and implicit conspiracies among groups of men as well as among groups of women, now and through-out history. Just not a single one since men and women are each members of other groups as well.

Confusion 16y ago
Emergent collusion due to groups of people sharing a goal is not equivalent to a conspiracy. There is no such thing as an implicit conspiracy: that's a contradiction in terminis. Similarly, a group of men conspiring to do something is not equivalent to a conspiracy for male domination. It's usually a conspiracy for their domination; their maleness is incidental.