I Figured Women Out!

Post Reply New Topic

I am starting to wonder, if how men treated women 7000 years ago, was right, its just the order of things, of nature.

It was an order of things and nature. We now have a different order of things and nature. Neither is more natural, as such an idea is impossible without question begging.

No animal, humans included, can act outside of its nature. I suggest anyone who thinks otherwise reassess their notion of 'nature'.

200 years does not change the nature of humans, when we have had over 200,000 years of evolution. social acceptability is a matter of the times, not of our genetic natures.

Its easier to dominate, then give in to womans whims and whiles. woman is to hard to satisfy, they expect to much of man before they will accept him. and the truth of this, is in them wanting that jerk over that nice guy. it does not matter if its wrong or right, what matters is results for human kind.

In time even Rome fell when they thought it would last forever.

Do you really want me to quoit history, when I really doubt you will even bother to look?
I wouldn't waste my time on the ignorant. otherwise, I have tons of hours of documentary for you to watch,.

stop trying to judge man, when woman is so busy doing it for us.
in the end only man loses. and as such, there is no winner.
Mans tears turns to rust in womans eyes, as women awakes their own dreams of perfections.

Bad day, huh?

you have no real concept of history do you?
I love documentaries, I watched hundreds if not thousands of them.
human history is vary interesting indeed.
our last few hundred years of change is nothing if it can not stand up to the tests of time.
Man has dominated woman since the dawn of time, there is a reason for this, for their fears.

My knowledge of history is certainly lacking. My understanding of what we may legitimately call 'human nature' is not. If our present state of affairs was in some way 'unnatural', it could not exist. Breathing unaided underwater is unnatural for humans - it is against actual human biological nature. No amount of protest and campaigning is going to get a single human breathing, unaided, underwater.

Giving women the vote is certainly not against human nature. I know this, because women have the vote. Again - and it's surprising how many people fail to grasp this - no animal can go against its nature. Where you think an animal - humans included - has gone against its nature, think again.

Now, I don't for a moment think that, following the gains of (in this case) feminism, anyone who considers themselves such can put their feet up. All such emancipatory politics is a long, constant, guarded struggle. The UK has recently, and with a public opinion backing of 54% to 37%*, passed legislation allowing gay people the right to civil marriage (religions have been left to their own devices). This would have been unthinkable fifteen, twenty, thirty years ago. And at those points, lots of people would have said 'well, it's against human nature to be gay, and human nature to find it disagreeable, and marriage is naturally between one man and one woman' etc. Certainly, there's still people saying such, but they're in the minority now. The culture has changed. It can only have done so as it is in accordance with human nature.

Which is to say, I am aware that, throughout history, there have been many societies and cultures, and the people within have been variously grouped and had roles and rights (or lack of) assigned to them. And, throughout history, as now, many within these societies have been unhappy with their lot, and some have let this disatisfaction be known, through various means and to various ends. And throughout history, people with power have claimed 'ah, but it is the natural and true state of affairs!', only to later be proven wrong.


* http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/20/vot ... -marriage/

your not educated in history enough for me to argue with. you think you know something, when you have no concept.
Like, your wanting to argue about gay, when it was totally acceptable in ancient times.

Man has dominated woman since the dawn of time, there is a reason for this, for their fears.
and woman has used this fear to their own advantages. they are not helpless against mans whims.
man hungers for womans love and acceptance, which gives woman power over man.
I am not sure if unleashing them is a vary good idea. man will suffer. while woman gains their own needs.
there would be no balance. man becomes slave to woman if they want to reproduce or have family.

'

The accelerating pace of change since the 50s has magnified the influence, the power and the dissemination of myths. As everything changes from the political map to the distribution of wealth, as human ingenuity leads to scientific breakthroughs which offer salvation and at the same time destruction, as strains on the family grow, the imagination hunts for stories to explain the pervasive malaise.

One of the stories in mass circulation today is a very old one, but it’s taken on new vigour: women in general are out of control, and feminism in particular is to blame. It is odd to think that misogynist jokes used to attack women for wanting to trap men into marriage. Now the attacks run the opposite way. The tabloids bitterly quote young mothers who say: “So who needs men?” Feminism today has become a bogy, a whipping boy, routinely produced to explain all social ills. Women struggle for equality of choice in matters of sex, their grasp of sovereignty over their bodies; are blamed in particular for the rise in family breakdown, the increase in divorce, and the apparently spiralling delinquency and violence of children. In these lectures I will be looking at the mythic accretions clustering stickily to these themes: men are no longer in control, mothers are not what they used to be, and it’s the fault of Germaine Greer, Cosmopolitan and headline stars who choose to be single mothers like Michelle Pfeiffer. By holding up to the light modern mythical nodes of this kind I hope to loosen in some cases their binding grip on our imaginations. Replying to one story with another which unravels the former has become central to contemporary thought and art, text as well as image. The idea of a kind of cultural kontakion, the Greek antiphonal chorus across the nave of response and reply, invocation and challenge opens a new angle of view.

The she-monster is hardly a new phenomenon. The idea of a female untamed nature which must be leashed or else will wreak havoc closely reflects mythological heroes’ struggles against monsters. Greek myth alone offers a host - of Ceres, Harpies, Sirens, Moirae. Associated with fate and death in various ways, they move swiftly, sometimes on wings; birds of prey are their closest kin - the Greeks didn't know about dinosaurs - and they seize as in the word raptor. But seizure also describes the effect of the passions on the body; inner forces, madness, art, folly, personified in Homer and the tragedies as feminine, snatch and grab the interior of the human creature and take possession. Ungoverned energy in the female always raises the issue of motherhood; fear that the natural bond excludes men and eludes their control courses through ancient myth, which applies various remedies. In Aeschylus’s Oresteia, when Orestes has murdered his mother Clytemnestra, the matriarchal Furies want justice against the matricide - but they find themselves confronting a new order, led by the god Apollo. Orestes is declared innocent, and in a famous resolution which still has power to shock audiences today, the god decrees:

The mother of what’s called her offspring’s no parent
but only the nurse to the seed that’s implanted.
The mounter, the male’s the only true parent.
She harbours the bloodshoot, unless some god blasts it.
The womb of the woman’s a convenient transit.

In this brutal act of legislation, the god of harmony declares that henceforward, in civilised society, only the father counts. The mother is nothing more than an incubator.

The spectre of gynocracy, of rule by women, stalks through the founding myths of our culture: both Theseus and Hercules fight with the Amazons - and vanquish their queens. The Amazon’s separatist queendom made them tantalising but also monstrous in the eyes of the Greeks; the terrible massacres of their army depicted on stone reliefs and vases redounded to the fame of the Greek heroes as surely as cutting off Medusa’s head.

In the folklore of the past, classical and medieval, the female beast was sometimes cunning and purposely concealed her true nature: the Sirens lured men with their deceitful songs, and later tempted fierce anchorites in the desert, approaching St Anthony for instance, with honeyed words, hiding their diabolical nether parts under sumptuous dresses. Male beasts, as in Beauty and the Beast, or male devils, as in the temptations of St Anthony, don't possess the same degree of duplicity; you can tell you’re dealing with the devil on the whole, but when evil comes in female guise, you have to beware: the fairy queen may turn to dust in your arms, and poisonous dust at that.

I am starting to wonder, if how men treated women 7000 years ago, was right, its just the order of things, of nature.
Its easier to dominate, then give in to womans whims and whiles. woman is to hard to satisfy, they expect to much of man before they will accept him. and the truth of this, is in them wanting that jerk over that nice guy. it does not matter if its wrong or right, what matters is results for human kind.

Thank you for proving my point! I know it was totally acceptable - indeed, the norm. And yet, there was a long stretch of history after that where it was an abhorrance to many. As far as I can see, you are trying to argue for some sort of 'rightness' of a particular state of affairs - men dominating women - as you see it as more 'natural'. My point is, simply, that it is not more natural.

I am not arguing a historical point - I do not need to. I am talking about 'human nature' as a concept.




Man has also dominated man. I trust you'd be happy and agreeable to living under a dictatorship?

You're taking your own troubles, and writing them large across time and space. T'was ever thus. We call this 'myth'.

Exactly! People in general are hard to figure out. None of us really know what we want, we change our minds unpredictably and are riddled with contradictions.

I repeat, you do not know enough of history of man.

Based on what I know in history, women were treated better 7000+ years ago than a few millenniums ago; women's status probably got worsen first after agriculture (~10000 years ago) leading to the rise of patriarchy model, got worsen the most after the spreading of Abrahamic religions (~2000 years ago), and it got best after feminism only few decades ago.

However, a full matriarchal prehistory is most probably a myth used as propaganda.