Feminism for Dummies.

[Ilovemyself]

Ok. Here goes.

Apologies if I have offended anyone with my posts since I started using the site. I certainly didn't mean to.

I am all for equality, be it based on sex, race, sexuality, or whatever subculture you area member of.

I have been surprised at the level of vitriol aimed at me because of my (rather poorly worded )comments.

I understand that in every fight for equality there will be those for who the fight is an ever consuming thing. And there will also be those who have been down trodden for so long they will snap at the slightest thing against them. And that there will be those who feel that because they have been oppressed for so long it is their right to be in a dominant position.

For those that want to tip the balance in the opposite direction, I will always disagree. Equality is what we should aim for in all walks of life. These are those who I referred to when I said taking things too far - for promoting something other than equality.

But for the other groups, should I walk on eggshells for fear of offending them, or should say my piece, apologise if I offend, and carry on.

Or am I completely wrong in viewing feminism as a fight for equality when it is actually a fight for women to be in a dominant position over men.

I hope I get some answers here - I certainly don't want a repeat of the last 24 hours. Thanks all.

We might think about the situations humans have faced throughout the time we've existed. So maybe men became larger (but not gigantic) so as to fight more successfully against other men while not requiring an incredible amount more food. And it's an uncomfortable thought, but maybe men are bigger than women so that in any physical confrontation (including an attempt to run away) the man would probably win.

If we really believe Darwin was right, we have to accept that the engine that drives the form of any species is "What makes a given individual more likely to have surviving offspring?" It definitely is not "What makes us happy?" Hence women who were willing to have children, or who could be forced to, were the ones who passed their genes along. And for men, the ones who reproduced were the ones not killed off by the man next door, and who could persuade or force a woman to participate.

flora because women do chose who they have sex with. Just look at online dating how women are inundated with offers for sex, but its very rare to be the other way round.
That's one example of many that shows women are 'gate keepers' to sex regardless of how you look at it.
Meaning women like taller men, hence women are taller.

The whole theory is most women prefer 'manly' men and most men prefer 'womanly' women, this affects the behaviour of society.
Its certainly an interesting theory than the standard men are bastards, but then you have to ask why that's the case.

However interesting they are, the theories maybe completely wrong.

"On the Origin of Species: An Update for the match.com Generation"

Or really, way less since online dating is a lot less than a generation old.

The whole theory is most women prefer 'manly' men and most men prefer 'womanly' women, this affects the behaviour of society

Can I rewrite that to say..

The expectation of society, and the way that people have been conditioned, or socialised, means that most women prefer 'manly' men and most men prefer 'womanly' women

We seem to be in complete disagreement about cause and effect.

And as for taking match.com as a model for how we have evolved over the last millenia? There are still plenty of societies today where young women have their husbands chosen for them; they have no choice who they bear children with.

I'd be quite interested in knowing what a "womanly woman" is.

Women are the "gate keepers" of sex because its relatively easy for an average women to find a sexual partner than an average man.
My online dating example was just an illustration of how easy it is for women to 'mate'.

Probably the opposite of a 'manly man'

And what is a "manly man" arsenal? "Manly man" and "womanly woman" are totally subjective judgements. Be grateful therefore if you could answer the question.

Mate as in have sex, or as in reproduce?

Have sex.. Which in old days would have meant reproduce

Are you arguing that women being gatekeepers of sex - a role patriarchy forced women into - is a result of evolution, rather than social constraints Arsenal?

I don't know why you are asking me what is a 'manly man'
I don't know what's your angle. Say whatever you want say.

Arsenal

You seem to be mixing up concepts here. Evolution is not a process of consciousness, it's an effect that happens on a species level, or at least on a subgroup of a species level.

So taller hominids might have been more likely to survive to pass on their genes than shorter ones because, say, they could see the predators coming through the long grass more readily, say. Fine, that's a possibility. But it doesn't mean it was a choice of a female for a taller male, or vice versa - it means that shorter hominids were more likely to be eaten before they could reproduce.

But we don't need to do that now. Shorter people and taller people are equally as likely to survive to reproductive age. if there was such an evolutionary pressure, it has gone away. Now attractiveness is far more defined by social norms and pressures - "tall dark and handsome" is still a cliche, but not because the tall guy is more likely than the short to live long enough for child rearing.

I have no angle Arsenal. I was asking a question. You are the one going on about manly men and womanly women. I am asking what you mean by these descriptions. It appears you have no idea. Why use these descriptions when you don't appear to have the foggiest notion what you are talking about. If you do, please enlighten us.

thedoctrine your concept doesn't explain why women are more sexually attracted to indicators of high levels of testosterone
Or 'manly men'

There are studies after studies that show women are attracted to high levels of testosterone especially at their most fertile.

If anyone wants evidence, well prove me wrong.

Terrific, can you link to some of those "studies after studies" please?

I don't know about "studies after studies", but there was a flurry of articles about a month ago:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/mens-smell-testosterone-attractive-to-women-study_n_3110182.html

and this one lists references:
the-gist.org/2012/09/what-is-sexy-anyway-a-scientific-approach/

Believe it or not, I found those by grabbing "women are attracted to high levels of testosterone" from this page and dropping it into Google. Anyone could have done it.

Can you not see that coming into a feminist space and basically telling everyone what they're doing wrong is going to be seen as patronising at best and infuriating at worst?

Funny, that, because that is exactly what feminists do when they come roaring onto the religious threads. You can't have it both ways.

juicy surely you mean atheists rather than feminists. There are lots of feminist religious.

the doct If anyone wants evidence, well prove me wrong.

basil sorry didnt read your response, Are you arguing that women being gatekeepers of sex - a role patriarchy forced women into - is a result of evolution, rather than social constraints Arsenal?
BS about its a result of social constraints.
Women have/had to be more choosy in whom was to father their children because they carried the child for 9 MONTHS and provided most of the primary care for many years to come.
The choosier one decides who they have sex with, meaning women are the gate keepers of sex.
And they chose men who showed high levels of testosterone..