3 ms·

It's not sexist. It's a statistical observation about human behavior. Sure, there may be females that are just looking for a male who is nice. But in general t

by esarbe 4y ago

It's not sexist. It's a statistical observation about human behavior. Sure, there may be females that are just looking for a male who is nice. But in general they are looking for a male who is nice and good looking and has high societal status. Just as males are looking for females that are good looking and fertile. That's what all animals do. They try to maximize their reproductive success. Humans are animals. And even though we have contraceptives that negate the effect of the behavior, the underlying drive and mechanisms are still the same.

kevviiinn 4y ago
What you're completely disregarding is the fact that nice males make for good fathers and helpful partners which is highly valuable. Your simplistic view on behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce patriarchal social constructs
- esarbe 4y ago
  It doesn't matter if nice males make for better fathers if that doesn't improve reproductive success. Quite the contrary. When it comes to human societies; I don't buy that whole "patriarchal social constructs" thing. Society is a matter of constant negotiation between the sexes, not something that is forced from one sex onto the other and set in stone. To believe that females are oppressed by males is to believe that females are helpless and fragile and need to be protected. Females can very much take care of themselves and are just as strong a force in shaping society - if not more so - than males. Your simplistic view on reproductive behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce misunderstandings between the sexes.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Females are not helpless or fragile but have definitely been historically oppressed especially in some highly religious societies Were women just voluntarily not voting in the US or what?
    - esarbe 4y ago
      So, you are of the impression that men were all able to vote? That's kinda funny. Voting rights were limited to rich men only. Poor men couldn't vote either. Only with the conscription into citizens' armies after the French revolution became it necessary for the "elites" to share their power. And soon after poor men gained suffrage, everyone gained suffrage. Go and check the development of voting rights in various democracies - you will find exactly this pattern. So no; women have not been historically oppressed, not even in some highly religious societies. Poor people have historically been oppressed. In any society. Women had other roles than men. That doesn't mean they were oppressed. That narrative propagates capitalistic propaganda to turn the poor against themselves and to divert from the the fact that power always was limited to those with means. You know - the actual oppressors.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        I'm very aware that the poor have been historically oppressed especially in recent capitalist societies like the US, I absolutely agree that it's a problem that capital owners continuously try to deflect through propaganda. However the oppression of the poor has historically run in parallel with the oppression of women. In ancient societies, women were often excluded from political and public life, and their main role was to bear children and maintain the household. This was true in many early civilizations, such as ancient Greece, Rome, and China. Religion also played a significant role in the oppression of women. Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have traditionally placed women in subordinate roles, with men as the primary religious leaders and decision-makers. Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages. These practices aimed to control and limit women's movements and independence, and were often seen as necessary for maintaining social order.
        esarbe 4y ago
        I would point out that the poor also have been oppressed in feudal and in pre-feudal societies, but I think that's besides the point. Your assumption of "historically oppressed women" only works if you perceive of women as being told by men how to behave and what to do. That's wrong. That is a fundamentally wrong understanding of how human societies work. Men are told how to behave by women and men. Women are told how to behave by women and men. Society and societal expectations are not something shaped by men. Is the construct of constant negotiations between both males and females. As with regard to "women being in subordinate roles"; there I suggest you to read more about the dual hierarchies of males and females. Men and women had for a very, very long time separate hierarchies - and to some degree still do. While the male hierarchy is typically oriented out-of-family, female hierarchies are typically oriented into-family. With the spread of agriculture and the rise of larger societies, the out-of-family hierarchies started to merge, creating larger and larger hierarchies with the family of the topmost male dominating this hierarchy. With time these hierarchies became the framework for legal and male-religious organization. That's why women hat to "break-in" to these hierarchies. The into-family hierarchies stayed mostly separate, in the household, the tribe and usually didn't expand out of the family. The Mosuo people in China are one notable exception to that "rule". > Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages. If you do some research you'll find that these things are not forced onto the females by men; they are forced onto the females by females and males. And if you find it abhorable that females' feet were bound - how angry will you be when you hear that most hard labor was forced onto men? Forced onto them by both men and women. This whole "patriarchy" is really the invention of wealthy, fin de siècle bourgeoisie that was disgusted by the development of universal male suffrage; the rich will never let the poor have a share.

by esarbe 4y ago

kevviiinn 4y ago

What you're completely disregarding is the fact that nice males make for good fathers and helpful partners which is highly valuable. Your simplistic view on behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce patriarchal social constructs

esarbe 4y ago
It doesn't matter if nice males make for better fathers if that doesn't improve reproductive success. Quite the contrary. When it comes to human societies; I don't buy that whole "patriarchal social constructs" thing. Society is a matter of constant negotiation between the sexes, not something that is forced from one sex onto the other and set in stone. To believe that females are oppressed by males is to believe that females are helpless and fragile and need to be protected. Females can very much take care of themselves and are just as strong a force in shaping society - if not more so - than males. Your simplistic view on reproductive behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce misunderstandings between the sexes.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Females are not helpless or fragile but have definitely been historically oppressed especially in some highly religious societies Were women just voluntarily not voting in the US or what?
  - esarbe 4y ago
    So, you are of the impression that men were all able to vote? That's kinda funny. Voting rights were limited to rich men only. Poor men couldn't vote either. Only with the conscription into citizens' armies after the French revolution became it necessary for the "elites" to share their power. And soon after poor men gained suffrage, everyone gained suffrage. Go and check the development of voting rights in various democracies - you will find exactly this pattern. So no; women have not been historically oppressed, not even in some highly religious societies. Poor people have historically been oppressed. In any society. Women had other roles than men. That doesn't mean they were oppressed. That narrative propagates capitalistic propaganda to turn the poor against themselves and to divert from the the fact that power always was limited to those with means. You know - the actual oppressors.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      I'm very aware that the poor have been historically oppressed especially in recent capitalist societies like the US, I absolutely agree that it's a problem that capital owners continuously try to deflect through propaganda. However the oppression of the poor has historically run in parallel with the oppression of women. In ancient societies, women were often excluded from political and public life, and their main role was to bear children and maintain the household. This was true in many early civilizations, such as ancient Greece, Rome, and China. Religion also played a significant role in the oppression of women. Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have traditionally placed women in subordinate roles, with men as the primary religious leaders and decision-makers. Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages. These practices aimed to control and limit women's movements and independence, and were often seen as necessary for maintaining social order.
      - esarbe 4y ago
        I would point out that the poor also have been oppressed in feudal and in pre-feudal societies, but I think that's besides the point. Your assumption of "historically oppressed women" only works if you perceive of women as being told by men how to behave and what to do. That's wrong. That is a fundamentally wrong understanding of how human societies work. Men are told how to behave by women and men. Women are told how to behave by women and men. Society and societal expectations are not something shaped by men. Is the construct of constant negotiations between both males and females. As with regard to "women being in subordinate roles"; there I suggest you to read more about the dual hierarchies of males and females. Men and women had for a very, very long time separate hierarchies - and to some degree still do. While the male hierarchy is typically oriented out-of-family, female hierarchies are typically oriented into-family. With the spread of agriculture and the rise of larger societies, the out-of-family hierarchies started to merge, creating larger and larger hierarchies with the family of the topmost male dominating this hierarchy. With time these hierarchies became the framework for legal and male-religious organization. That's why women hat to "break-in" to these hierarchies. The into-family hierarchies stayed mostly separate, in the household, the tribe and usually didn't expand out of the family. The Mosuo people in China are one notable exception to that "rule". > Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages. If you do some research you'll find that these things are not forced onto the females by men; they are forced onto the females by females and males. And if you find it abhorable that females' feet were bound - how angry will you be when you hear that most hard labor was forced onto men? Forced onto them by both men and women. This whole "patriarchy" is really the invention of wealthy, fin de siècle bourgeoisie that was disgusted by the development of universal male suffrage; the rich will never let the poor have a share.