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.

^My point is, yes Im repeating, women are attracted to high levels of testosterone because of evolution.
No piece of evidence that I know of supports 'women are conditioned' to like certain men.^

Yet again you fail to provide evidence.

Fine, you assert all you like that mate selection in humans is nothing to do with socialisation of humans and everything to do with hormone levels and other "animal" factors.

I'm not quite clear how you separate that from how you spend your days doing whatever job you do (presumably not hunter-gathering), typing these arguments on a constructed forum, communicating with people you will never meet etc.

The vast majority of Western human life is governed by socialisation and constructed civilisation, but in this one area I'm supposed to believe testosterone trumps all?

arsenal you started off saying that studies proved what you were saying about evolution was true. You tried and failed to back this up and now you're reduced to saying "prove it's not true".

You said above that men were taller than women because women preferred taller men and therefore women's choices drove evolution. Now you're saying women are attracted to men with high testosterone "because of evolution". You're really just coming out with a load of incoherent shit.

Debating with Arsenal is like shooting fish in a barrel. He can't even logically define what a womanly woman is in his view- a attribute he chose to use - without resorting to naff facetiousness about using skin products.....

He is a mass of irrational contradictions. Time to leave the poor man alone.

Grimble I was hoping you'd get the point I was trying to make, without sounding rude 'stupid question get stupid answers.'
i dont know if it will help, but think of Carol Voderman and Chris Hemsworth.

Docto Typing a post takes a minute, as Im sure as everyone else no one takes this too seriously, its just a debate.
But I am interested to know if Im wrong.

Anyway Mate selection is one and probably the only place were we are governed by our 'animal instincts'.
Mate selection occurs on a sub conscious level, we dont actually tell ourself to fall for someone, the 'spark' just happen.

That is why people can be attracted to a person even if every ounce of their body knows this person is wrong.

Flora my whole argument is 'indicators of high levels of testosterone', height being on of them but not necessarily.

STILL NO ONE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO PROVE ME WRONG

That comment about men having to resort to rape as Women are too selective is actually quite sickening.

Is this what you think? What kind of a Man are you?

On the contrary, I think mate selection is socialised.

NO ONE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO PROVE ME WRONG EITHER! HURRAH! SHOUTY CAPS ARE FUN!

I think if you want to state an argument as the fact, the truth, it would be better to provide evidence to back up that fact, rather than demanding that other people waste their valuable time looking up research for you.

Or in other words. What Doctrine said

Arsenal: it is not a stupid question to ask for your definition of a womanly woman. It was an attempt to see whether you had actually thought through what you were saying i.e. what attributes qualify a woman to be called "womanly".

First you ignore it, then you accuse me of having an agenda, then you make a facetious comment about using skin products.

I did somewhat suspect that your evasion was because you wanted to avoid citing a stereotypical male fantasy hourglass figure as a womanly woman. 2 out of 10 for originality

As expected i see NO EVIDENCE... I would happily say Im talking out of my arse if proven wrong.

Evolution Theory make a lot more sense than 'Social Conditioning.'

Google 'women are attracted to high levels of testosterone' or
Google 'testosterone in men attraction to google scholar' take your pick.
Wikipedia: Physical attractiveness and follow links about male attraction.

Doct Im sorry if I offended you and whoever, I meant a certain type of men (nasty), hence the prison example.
I know its an argument that can be used by some people to justify wrongly oppressing women.
Same as the evolution theory, if used in a lazy manner, CAN be used wrongly to justify misogynist beliefs.

GrimbleI knew your agenda was to was to catch me out citing a stereotypical male fantasy hourglass figure .

Well she is gorgeous and smart .

Well on a serious matter her and Chris Hemsworth are what I would call a 'womanly woman' and 'manly man' because the majority of the opposite sex finds them attractive.
Why, because of evolution .

What? The majority of men find Carol Vorderman attractive? Err.......so is there evidence for that then.... oh, no, I see how this works, we just have to accept your ideas as fact unless we can prove you wrong.........just off to do a straw poll of male relatives........

Problem with that theory is that men's level of testosterone is not constant. It's pretty much constantly in flux (it has actually been shown to cycle wider in a month than in women). It would mean men's level of attractiveness changes constantly.

And it drops significantly after having children. Men who care for their kids have lower levels, it drops significantly after he begins doing so and remains low for a while, but women appreciate, and likely more attracted to, a man who cares for his kids than not (and he is more likely to have more children, which is the another large hole in your evolutionary theory).

It may make more sense to you, but the evidence goes against you. The definition of masculinity and femininely change depending on what culture you are in and it is the point of culture and socialization to train a child to be an adult. The process of teaching a child to be a man or woman is social conditioning and that would obviously involve defining these social roles.

Also, polls put Tom Hiddleston as more popular with the ladies than his buddy Hemsworth, and the main reason is because of how emotive he comes across. Manly man is an icon for men, not women.

I would suggest doing more research than google in the future. Here's a hew tips before jumping in in the future.

Blistory your writing about women's experiences in your three parter were excellent. Thank you so much.

wilsonfricket thank you for answering my question about women wanting patriarchy to continue. I have been away and have only just caught up on thread. some of it is very interesting and well written.

Reality I followed your link and ended up in unexpected places, thank you.

arsenal you are starting to sound like a four year old repeating his favourite knock knock joke over and over again.

Men and women (mostly) find the opposite sex attractive as a matter of biology - we need to reproduce with a member of the opposite sex. Reproduction did not arise from evolution. I think you should be able to grasp that. You're seriously all over the place on this and you have now proved my original statement to you on this thread that you know nothing about evolutionary theory.

Like I expected no evidence.

Reality Very interesting link especially the other bits, but if everyone lived within the 'status quo' then the world would be even more shit. It goes against everything I believe in about 'pigeon hole' people or remaining silent because its the order of the day.

Back to your point, do not like magazine polls, especially a magazine aimed at a certain type of customer (Total Film: young men who earn significant above average). Nonetheless I would be interested to know how big the difference of votes between 1 and 10.
Anyway its funny how almost everyone else is 6ft+, either muscly and/or has small eyes.
And it drops significantly after having children. Men who care for their kids have lower levels, it drops significantly after he begins doing so and remains low for a while, but women appreciate, and likely more attracted to, a man who cares for his kids than not (and he is more likely to have more children, which is the another large hole in your evolutionary theory).
Remember 'indicators of high testosterone.' The hormone increases around 'attractive' women for a reason.
How does it put a large hole, it means the man who has high testosterone but also has the ability to lower it when he has children survives.
But the initial attraction was caused by testosterone.

It even makes more sense why testosterone is high before having children because they need to pro create and decreases after children in order to raise the child. Meaning testosterone is very important in attracting a mate, but not so good in child rearing.

Also as far as I'm aware there is no study that suggests male attraction is not universal.

Does anyone else remember giving some actual thought to the person they decided to reproduce with? Something beyond "Phwoar, I'm chucking the condoms out, testosterone me up, baby"?

Or am I just hopelessly socialised?

Of course 'wikipedia is not an academic source' but the good thing about Wikipedia they often provide academic ref.
I simply provided a Google Scholar search so anyone can chose whatever paper amongst 100s.

I honestly can't find any study that suggest Social Conditioning.

thedoct its hard to describe what caused the 'spark'

Arsenal: actually I was not trying to trap you into stereotyping. True, I suspected you would probably equate manly and womanly with the Phwoar factor. But I was hoping that you had some evidence-based insight to impart. Sadly you went for the superficial. BTW I had to look up Chris Hemsworth as I hadn't even heard of him . Afraid he does nothing for me though.

It's hard to describe but you're sure it's related to testosterone?