Who's More Dominant?

[ROOKIE OF THE YEAR]

I believe men have more power than women. Although feminists claimed men and women are created equally, they are the most judgmental when it comes talking about guys. Kind of a hypocrite if you ask me.

For example, try watch some of the episodes of Sex and the City. It's a show about 4 feminists who has the ability to have sex with whoever they want. However, if you look at the bigger picture, society can still exist without these so call powerful people.

Scientists have proven that women IQ are higher than men. Women tend to learn and think faster in majority of subjects at schools. As a matter of fact, many colleges today have to reject some women in order for men to get accepted. However, in the end, most engineers, lawyers, doctors, and all sorts of important people are still men. Why?
I believe men willing to take responsibility even in hardship. This responsibility make men so useful in society.

But enough about my opinion, I'm just curious of what you guys believe. Discuss.

 

[HandyAndy]

I have a penis, so I win.

 

[Rhoto]

The entire notion of equality is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that true equality never will, nor ever can exist.

Yes, the law is supposed to be applied equally but its not, because individuals with their own prejudices still make decisions.

The more and more individuals/groups push towards this Utopian ideal the more they will degrade their actual societal role and create general unhappiness.

 

[Rovalier]

Lets pretend women are more dominant. Does it really matter in the end, especially on a site like this and what it advocates? This is going to sound selfish but to hell with it, what you do with yourself is more important than the fact a bunch of men or AFCs are being dominated by women. If you argue men are handicapped by a women oriented society, then go out and set an example: adapt and defy 'em. If it is the contrary and men are dominant, will it change the way you act? I would hope not.

 

[TheHumanist]

I believe men have more power than women. Although feminists claimed men and women are created equally, they are the most judgmental when it comes talking about guys. Kind of a hypocrite if you ask me.

For example, try watch some of the episodes of Sex and the City. It's a show about 4 feminists who has the ability to have sex with whoever they want. However, if you look at the bigger picture, society can still exist without these so call powerful people.

Scientists have proven that women IQ are higher than men. Women tend to learn and think faster in majority of subjects at schools. As a matter of fact, many colleges today have to reject some women in order for men to get accepted. However, in the end, most engineers, lawyers, doctors, and all sorts of important people are still men. Why?
I believe men willing to take responsibility even in hardship. This responsibility make men so useful in society.

But enough about my opinion, I'm just curious of what you guys believe. Discuss.

Umm... The First thing I want to point out is recent research have actually pointed that men have higher variance (more very low iq and very iq) people while women have less variance (less very high iq but less very low iq). Just typing in google that one recent result even reported that men have higher iq. An article citation, the journal of its source: British Journal of Psychology. So that makes that women are smarter but men work harder argument void.

Now what do I think? Well, another thing to point out that the belief that men and women are equal and thus should be given equal opportunites to enter what they want was part of the origin of feminism, I think it is a fair and acceptable viewpoint. Back then, women wanted to be taken seriously on their well thought out views on politics, if they done well in school and shown intelligence, they wanted to be allow to pursue it. Modern Feminism (and ourside the forum, radical feminism) have morph to something far from the original desires that is relatable to other rights movements. Where back then they wanted their ideas to be considered fairly, now many are just force to accept bad or good, without critical thought. Where back then they wanted to have opportunities in exploration of other activities, many today abuse it to give permission to themselves inaction or damaging activies. Rollo post a recent thread with an article demonstrating a flawed thinking of feminism, in the article, it lamanted that so many wives sacrafice their careers to their "selfish" husbands in their pursuit. However, the flaw is should equality should just be measured in income or careers? A view of competition where it should be cooperation? Modern radical feminism is too focus on the statistics that the numbers should be equal rather than the contentment or fairness between that is missed out on the income crunch look on paper. Others just want entittlement (more of rights, but none of the responsiblity or accountablity in exercising it) rather than opportunies that the original women clamored for.

For the workforce, why women despite higher grades and going to better schools, as to quote one women who noted that, "don't take art history." Despite achieving better grades, many women in college just go for the liberal arts (not to say liberal arts doesn't have it place, my own sn reflects my liberal art thinking, but liberal arts place is to help develop stong articulation of ideas (good writing and good oration), understanding of different views of the world and philososphy, understanding of ethics, understanding of the origins in the effects of asthetics). Liberal arts is a fine path to make well-verse, well-informed, well-read, highly articulative, critical thinking, understanding, and possibly individual if used right, but most just don't go futher to going beyond regurgitation or more importantly, application to their own lives or to their carrers. Many read Pride and Prejudice, but few actually take something out of it such as insight to the complexities of social norms or relations, but only remeber the story. Unlike many men who do go into liberal arts (poly sci for ex), still go on to graduate school to become lawyers.

So why do women get higher grades? There seem to be many possible reasons, in the forum, I think many would claim bias in school from the imbalance of teachers being women and requirements that young girls are more capable than boys (like standing still). Others outside may also point out to other possible reasons, such as the possibility of higher pressure in girls or something else. To me, I think there is multiple elements going on including the above and others. One thing I definately think is women have a higher expectation for high grades, but ironically push less to find the passion that motivate many to go after something which bring high grades along the way. I recall one video from the conference of TED, it had one women talking about her ideas and research on cancer, in her story, what pushed her into becomming the high grades that got her into a good school that led her to becomming a cancer researcher is when she was young that stumbled on a medical book that she couldn't put down. Few women (or people) got good grades because they wanted to do good, many women (and people) get good grades for the pressure to get it. So I do play with the thought for the imbalance in engineers and so on is due to nurture rather than nature (or at least a large part, one anecdotal evidence is the noticing that the type of women who are engineers and so on, looks are on the lower scale or at least the person is of a different culture, perhaps the diversion of energy to sexuality and.or attention from people keep the more attractive from developing any interest in such fields).

In conclusion, as in the very end, as a thinker in the humanist philosophy, we are all human, while different attributes leans to one gender or another, we are equal overall accounting for everything. In treatment of each other is different, equal oportunity and equal treatment is very different things. Treatment depends on respect which must be earned and let's not forget there are also many people have a prejudice one way or another that bends the treatments of others too. "Men are all born equal" call for equal oporunity and chance to be treated as an equal, it doesn't mean if the child grow up to be a 300 pound AFC who works in the grocery store, but still act like a prick should still be given the same level of respect to everyone else.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Traditional gender roles used to be based on a complimentary ideology, meaning that each sex followed different, though complimentary, models. A man was respected as the decision maker of the home and the woman was responsible for nurturing and wellbeing of that household. No one role was above the other, but both were separate and respected. Today however, due to the pervasive influence of feminization (not to be confused with feminism), a new gender model has become accepted and this is called the egalitarian model. This model is one of total equitability in gender roles without the differentiation of male or female roles. This is a flat-line equality which ignores the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each gender in favor of presuming both can be equally effective in problem solving and meeting relational challenges based on individual personal qualities.

Egalitarianism is defeating; it leaves a vaccuum of power to be filled by the woman in the wrong instances, while expecting a man to possess the equitable feminine qualities he's lacking while still holding him accountable for them. In other words, if a wife feels her husband is incapable of providing for her and the kids with the decisive, confident security of leadership she will feel compelled to assume the role of the husband and he will be relegated to the role of being the passive, submissive wife. In the egalitarian model this is acceptable, socially reinforced and passed on as learned behavior to their children. And in this generation (and perhaps the one prior) it's not a stretch to assume that contemporary male submissiveness was in fact taught to them by their own parents.

That's the problem - now how do you change it? The first step is to develop the ownership of your role as a husband and the authority you are entitled to (and is expected of you) because of it. You need to own the respect that is afforded to you as the primary. The hardest lesson to learn is to change your own mind about yourself. Most men never had the occasion to develop an understanding of positive masculinity.

Secondly, you need to get in touch with your inner A-Hole and stop falling back on compassion and your 'feminine' side. There is merit in being empathetic, but far too many men default to it as a method for keeping the peace in spite of what would serve both himself and his spouse better. Time to ditch this horsesh!t altogether, it only places you in passive, submissive guilt driven obedience. YOU ARE THE MAN and the PRIZE to be had, express it in your voice, your mannerisms, your confidence in dealing with other men worthy of your respect, with women and especially children. Listen to what your wife has to say, but decide what you will all do according to how you interpret things and NEVER in response to her emotional blackmail.

Lastly, break some eggs and stand firm. All the confrontation and power reclamation in the world wont hold an ounce of water if you spinelessly fall back on resolve. Stick to it. It's going to be rough at first, but short term intimacy is never worth long term disrespect. When you begin to establish yourself as the primary she will blackmail you with her intimacy, hold out on you and pitch fits like a child, but your life will be worse if you act decisively and then backslide to "get some." She knows this is her only agency to make you behave the way she thinks she wants you to, but once you begin to establish that it holds no power over you she will relent. Certainly not at first because what you'll do will represent the power she assumed in order to have her security needs met will be transfering back to the guy she felt she had to take it from. This is going to make her crazy in the beginning since those feeling of insecurity will come up again, but stay strong.

Who's more dominant? On average I think women are, but only because of a socialized, ready willingness from most men to abdicate. Women are more dominant, but they have a natural desire to want you to be.

One thing I can tell you after 12 years of marriage is that the moment I go AFC on my wife I fail the sh!t test. We have a complimentary marriage by design, but it took a few years before I was able to recognize that I needed to be at the rudder of my family's ship. Trust me, a wife wants you there too, but through egalitarianism she's been taught to fear your decisions more, no matter how recklesss her own are. Egalitarianism means each individual is setting their own coursse, whereas complimentarianism encourages both partners to cooperate to follow a shared course.

I don't know if you've ever played mixed doubles tennis before, but that's how I see marriage. you have to cooperatively play together in order to hit the ball back over the net to win. You can't do this if you're hitting the ball at each other all the time. You have to play on the same team or you lose the game. The sexes were meant to be complimentary to each other not adversarial.

 

[TheHumanist]

I have to say, you did a much better job explaining that part of the of the damaging activities between couples competing and adversarial rather than cooperating and complimentary part that I did. Though I want to add a little criticism that in the complimentary ideaology of gender roles where the man and the women have their roles that allow them to compliment and cooperate, I see it could be misinterpreted (at least I think you didn't meant that) that "woman's place in the house." If you disagree RT, point out the flaw, but the real element of the complimentary ideaology is the belief and actions to cooperate which means following the roles of the husband and the wife, but it does not eliminate the feminist original thought of being acceptable to pursue goals outside of being the nurturing and wellbeing of the household (though there's no doubt that going really far in high demand careers would be more than difficult).