Do men “own" women?
Yes! of course. Biologically and culturally women have always, and still are, subservient to men. Their biological and emotional roles have always been to support and serve the men of the community. Men provide the physical strength required to protect the family /tribe/territory/culture/ and women that belong to the men of the community, to engage in conflict/warfare, and to provide the authority to represent the family/tribe in the greater community . Evolution has provided men with the physical, emotional, and mental traits required to provide leadership and direction to the women and children of the family/tribe. The tasks of women are to produce and care for the children while providing men with a proper domestic environment, including sex, sustenance, and maintenance of the fabric of cooperative life. In many cultures, overtly and covertly, ownership of women is so highly valued by men that they are considered as spoils of war and personal property to be obtained, controlled, and fought for over any other personal property. Only recently, just in the last few hundred years, and not at all in some modern cultures, have women partly broken the strong biological, physiological, psychological, cultural and communal positions and roles that defined women as subservient to, and property of, men. The time honored cultural, religious, and sociological structure of the human community, where women are in the service of men, must never change or the fabric of civilization and the structure of organized religion will be ripped apart.
No! Absolutely not. Although there are significant biological, mental, and cultural traits and roles that are obviously different from those of most men, most women are intellectually equal if not superior to men and are fully capable of most of the communal tasks that men traditionally control. There is a great difference between cooperative behavior and personal equality within a task structured community; and ownership of a human being that is only a form of captivity and slavery. Every human being regardless of gender, race, intellectual and/or physical attributes is an independent sentient being and has the human right of entering into and remaining within any relationship only at their own volition. History and culture must change, and is changing, to reflect these inalienable rights of human existence. If humanity is ever to achieve its full potential, including the basic right of all human beings to achieve the aspirations of which they are capable; all human cultures must change from the imposition of primitive ownership and exploitation of women forced upon them by primitive cultural and religious mores, to a open and equal societies. Cultural evolution must continue and quicken in its movement in the direction of social and economic equality.
Both of these opinions are very widely held in our modern world. Will one win out over the other, or will they blend, or will they remain in great contest?
Martin Moe
They will, but they won’t, then they will change, then they’ll change back, then history will repeat itself, except slightly differently than before, because free will doesn’t exist.
Women own men. The men are just too dumb and egotistical to figure it out.
Ownership is an idea in people’s heads that society creates and can enforce with laws backed up by force.
psik
Possessive individualism is just a way of looking at the world, that most of us buy into.
But the idea of owning another person, regardless of gender, seems repugnant to me. (Not to mention that it would be far too expensive, even if one desired such, for some odd reason).
No! Absolutely not. Although there are significant biological, mental, and cultural traits and roles that are obviously different from those of most men, most women are intellectually equal if not superior to men and are fully capable of most of the communal tasks that men traditionally control. There is a great difference between cooperative behavior and personal equality within a task structured community; and ownership of a human being that is only a form of captivity and slavery. Every human being regardless of gender, race, intellectual and/or physical attributes is an independent sentient being and has the human right of entering into and remaining within any relationship only at their own volition. History and culture must change, and is changing, to reflect these inalienable rights of human existence. If humanity is ever to achieve its full potential, including the basic right of all human beings to achieve the aspirations of which they are capable; all human cultures must change from the imposition of primitive ownership and exploitation of women forced upon them by primitive cultural and religious mores, to a open and equal societies. Cultural evolution must continue and quicken in its movement in the direction of social and economic equality.It seems that societies which fit this description are dying out.
Yes! of course. Biologically and culturally women have always, and still are, subservient to men. Their biological and emotional roles have always been to support and serve the men of the community. Men provide the physical strength required to protect the family /tribe/territory/culture/ and women that belong to the men of the community, to engage in conflict/warfare, and to provide the authority to represent the family/tribe in the greater community . Evolution has provided men with the physical, emotional, and mental traits required to provide leadership and direction to the women and children of the family/tribe. The tasks of women are to produce and care for the children while providing men with a proper domestic environment, including sex, sustenance, and maintenance of the fabric of cooperative life. In many cultures, overtly and covertly, ownership of women is so highly valued by men that they are considered as spoils of war and personal property to be obtained, controlled, and fought for over any other personal property. Only recently, just in the last few hundred years, and not at all in some modern cultures, have women partly broken the strong biological, physiological, psychological, cultural and communal positions and roles that defined women as subservient to, and property of, men. The time honored cultural, religious, and sociological structure of the human community, where women are in the service of men, must never change or the fabric of civilization and the structure of organized religion will be ripped apart.Whereas these societies are increasing. I remember a quote from some novel or a movie that went something like - High status men own women, women own children, children own pets. Although its meant to be a little funny, its probably true.
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate].
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women).
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women). And perhaps, just maybe, possibly, could there be factors other than women equality at the roots of birth rate declines.
mid atlantic isn’t right, but he’s not 100% wrong either.
Countries where women are property have a higher birthrate than needed to keep the population steady, while enlightened/advanced societies often have lower birthrates that are just enough to sustain the current population, and some do indeed have birthrates too low to sustain the population purely through new births. But these are simply bits of data, not arguments, explanations or an answer to the original question.
The original question is purely rhetorical to me.
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women).China's low birthrate is due to the 1 child policy they had until recently.
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women). And perhaps, just maybe, possibly, could there be factors other than women equality at the roots of birth rate declines.There could be, but none have been identified yet.
mid atlantic isn't right, but he's not 100% wrong either. Countries where women are property have a higher birthrate than needed to keep the population steady, while enlightened/advanced societies often have lower birthrates that are just enough to sustain the current population, and some do indeed have birthrates too low to sustain the population purely through new births. But these are simply bits of data, not arguments, explanations or an answer to the original question. The original question is purely rhetorical to me.Not some - all advanced countries are fading into oblivion.
mid atlantic isn't right, but he's not 100% wrong either. Countries where women are property have a higher birthrate than needed to keep the population steady, while enlightened/advanced societies often have lower birthrates that are just enough to sustain the current population, and some do indeed have birthrates too low to sustain the population purely through new births. But these are simply bits of data, not arguments, explanations or an answer to the original question. The original question is purely rhetorical to me.Not some - all advanced countries are fading into oblivion. WTF does that mean, "fading into oblivion"? Every civilization mixed with others to become something else. It has played out over centuries time and again. There are a couple of small tribes in remote jungles that claim otherwise. What is an "American" anyway? You can't make this point stick. What's well established is, when a stable middle class develops, one where there is opportunity, education, abundant food, likelihood of children surviving, birth rates decline. I don't see a downside to this until some point in the far off future where population is declining so rapidly we can't maintain infrastructure. I'm sure we'll adjust long before that happens.
Not some - all advanced countries are fading into oblivion.How long will it take a country of 30 million to 'fade into oblivion" if their birth rate is (-)1%? The fade will take about 1644 years (I used an online mortgage calculator to figure out the length of time, so I might be wrong) to reach the final sad couple. Are you really worried about countries where the population is in the tens of millions? Feel free to look at the actual population growth in all the countries you are worried about going extinct. Almost none have a negative growth, so why do you think they do? As important as it is to take a long-term outlook on things, I don't know that it's reasonable to be griping about the decline of a civilization when it's going to be over a millenia and a half away, especially when the numbers say it will grow.
Not some - all advanced countries are fading into oblivion.How long will it take a country of 30 million to 'fade into oblivion" if their birth rate is (-)1%? The fade will take about 1644 years (I used an online mortgage calculator to figure out the length of time, so I might be wrong) to reach the final sad couple. Are you really worried about countries where the population is in the tens of millions? I believe a lesson in *The Exponential Function* can provide some very fundamental answers to these questions.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
Feel free to look at the actual population growth in all the countries you are worried about going extinct. Almost none have a negative growth, so why do you think they do?Life stabilizes when the law of *Necessity and Sufficiency* is met. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uOF3AZI_Gc
As important as it is to take a long-term outlook on things, I don't know that it's reasonable to be griping about the decline of a civilization when it's going to be over a millenia and a half away, especially when the numbers say it will grow.All examples of Evolution and Natural Selection. This is how it works. Movement in the Direction of Greatest Satisfaction.
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women).China's low birthrate is due to the 1 child policy they had until recently. Right. They implemented that policy for that purpose. So now, according to your logic, they are "dying out". I didn't realize that the Chinese were so purposefully suicidal.
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women). And perhaps, just maybe, possibly, could there be factors other than women equality at the roots of birth rate declines.There could be, but none have been identified yet. Hello? Hello? Earth to MidA. You just identified China's purposeful decline in "fertility replacement". Then in the very next post, you declare that there are no identified factors (other than women equality) at the roots of birth rate declines.
mid atlantic isn't right, but he's not 100% wrong either. Countries where women are property have a higher birthrate than needed to keep the population steady, while enlightened/advanced societies often have lower birthrates that are just enough to sustain the current population, and some do indeed have birthrates too low to sustain the population purely through new births. But these are simply bits of data, not arguments, explanations or an answer to the original question. The original question is purely rhetorical to me.Not some - all advanced countries are fading into oblivion. "All advanced countries are fading into oblivion" (due to women getting equal standing with men). That is your stance. I suppose then that the remedy for avoiding that fate would be for men to take back their natural role of breeding women and subjugating them at their whim, then these advanced nations would excel and prosper. We must get this message out before it is too late! France, UK, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Canada! Are you still there? You're fading... I can hardly see you! Start f#@king over your women! There's still time!
MA, do you ever think about things before posting nonsense? Please provide some examples of societies that have granted women equal standing to mean and are dying out.The West. The West is below fertility replacement rate]. By that logic, China is also "dying out" (although they are not exactly known for their recognition of the equality of women).China's low birthrate is due to the 1 child policy they had until recently. What was the alternative? Mass starvation? Would that have been better? If women had been in charge of their own fertility and were able to make society's rules about reproduction and child care, the world would be a far better place than it is now. Lois