Return Home
It is currently Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:55 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 524 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:54 am
Posts: 419
Perhaps that central MBT-ism "consciousness leads, the body follows" comes in here...

Hardwiring vs changing cultural norms --> altered hardwiring vs changing cultural norms --> ad infinitum

If we accept the tenet, then this is the dynamic (in time as well as geographically) behind evolving human gender relations, as in all others. So "hard" wiring is not so hard...

Little Picture litmus test: does it result in optimum procreation/evolutionary fitness? Big Picture litmus test: does it facilitate entropy reduction? These two must presumably eventually go hand-in-hand, even if over very large timescales...??

Do other PMRs have binary/similar gender systems? Tom has said that there is an analogy in the LCS, so fractally the odds are in favour.

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:22 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 536
Hi Tom, thanks for sharing this! You've provided me a lot to ponder…I intend to move that pondering into the realm of action. But I have lots of ego and fear to defeat, and it comes out in full force when my wife and I are in disagreements. My ego sometimes won't let me relinquish control…that is what I need to work on...

One question. Putting the impetus for change on the male is premised on the fact that until recently, we have lived in a male-dominant society. The rationale for this argument, if I understand correctly, is that the course of evolution has required primary focus on dominating the external environment for survival, and men have specialized in that. Therefore men have shaped cultural institutions so that they are dominant, and in intimate relationships, generally men are more secure and women are more in doubt of themselves. Therefore it should be men who make the initial efforts. I find this truly enlightened. For myself, as a relatively privileged white male, who has fought very hard to erode my cultural programming, this precisely the correct course.

But I have a question about this. As females have started to be treated equally in society, the pendulum has rapidly begun to swing away from male dominance. We still have a very long way to go, but females are starting to become equal and/or dominant, both in professional and personal relationships. I know many men who are actually the passive, insecure ones, who look towards the female for self-validation.

As I said, I totally support aiming the advice at men, but do you think that it may be useful to add a bit aimed at couples who may be in reverse situations, or at least at couples who have relative equality in their relationship? If I understand correctly, the member of the couple who needs to take the lead in evolving the relationship is the one who is most secure in his or herself, who least needs external validation from the other partner. For several generations, in most cases, this will of course be the male, due to the fact that our culture and institutions are still male-dominant. But changes are rapidly occurring, so perhaps it would be useful to add a bit for those who do find themselves in different circumstances? Just something I've considered.


+++++++++++++++++++++++

If I may, I'm going to share some ideas, mixing mine with Tom's and with those of David Schnarch, author of the book Intimacy and Desire (see here and here for some of his articles). I've only read the first four chapters, so my understanding is still developing. Basically, Schnarch argues that through struggles over sexual desire within marriage, we develop a stronger sense of self. This means that emotional commitment to another person is not solely an evolutionary strategy for the propagation of genes, nor solely a strategy for material advantage, but it is also an evolutionary strategy for growing up and getting rid of ego and fear.

As Tom says, in the last 200 years or so, "initial conditions required for making fundamental progress toward a culture with no gender dominance have been steadily growing stronger." With these changing conditions, the nature of marriage has changed, in that the majority of us choose our partners rather than being forced into marriage. Arranged marriages, and various marriages of convenience are not common anymore. However, the "love" that brings us together preceding our selection of long-term partner--generally lust followed by romantic infatuation--does not endure in the long term. It couldn't; we would never get anything done. Also, as Tom implies, this type of lust and infatuation tends more toward the "need" side than the "love" side, if love is defined as unconditional acceptance and appreciation of the other. So it is not healthy in the long-term.

To Schnarch also, we are attracted to a partner who makes us feel good about ourselves ("falling in need"), but over time, this morphs into us becoming dependent on that partner to constantly validate us and prop up our ego. That desperate need for validation becomes a turn-off to the partner, who has then less desire for someone they now see as pathetic and insecure. The only way out of the trap is to grow up, stand on our own two feet, deal with our own issues, and stop seeing the partner as someone who is there to make us feel better about ourselves.

In short, it is long-term love which teaches us how to forgive and love unconditionally. But in order for us to do that, we must grow up as individuals. Marriage provides optimal conditions for all of that.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:07 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
A million years of evolution has spawned different attitudes, approaches and ways of interpreting and dealing with the world:

These differences express successful variation within the evolutionary process and lead to a broad range of sometimes overlapping characteristics for both males and females. Due to this evolutionary diversity, probably no statement or description of any meaningful sort will universally apply to all women or to all men.

However there are some female characteristics that do apply to many or most women and some male characteristics that do apply to many or most men. We will now explore a few of these typical female and male attributes to facilitate a discussion of several widely experienced contemporary gender issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, start with a simplified model, then deal with exceptions and normal curve tails after.
Quote:
Men are hardwired to direct their energy towards the mastery of the outside world. This exterior focus optimizes their ability to protect their tribe, mates, and children through team work and cooperation with other men. Male interaction is thus primarily with the outside environment and requires focus and attention to big picture outside strategy and little picture outside details.

He guides, forms, and manipulates his reality to suit him by asserting his skill and power in the outside world in order to take care of his tribe, mate, children and himself. Most of his interaction in the world is focused on manipulating the outside environment to provide for himself and those who depend on him.

Males apply their intellect to the outside environment in order to dominate the outside world with skill, power and force. However, they tend to stumble or feel their way through the inside environment of personal relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropologically, the men would head out on hunting or raiding parties, the women would stay close to the cave and tend to the children, the old, the goats, the gardens, perhaps under the protection of the domesticated wolves. A key question for modern life is how much are we stressing our innate nature by our lifestyle decisions that take us away from propensities that drifted into our hardwiring.

To what extent is gaming culture an imitation of reality but an offense to our masculine DNA? To what extent is feminist corporate warriorship empty materialism and an offense to the female's DNA? To what extent are we pretending roles based on false models of forced "sameism" in marriage?

I see a lot of younger couples rejecting "sameism" and rather returning to more anthropologically competent roles in marriage that better exploit their innate impulses. In the end, the corner office is less about the pleasures of power and is more about being coarse enough to manipulate staff for corporate benefit which includes firing and turning people's lives upside down. I observe very talented women choosing lets say to be eye surgeons rather than MBA warriors, perhaps with a 4 day work week.

What I am getting at here is equality in the zone of being free of ego and expired culture, as well as newly manufactured culture, to figure out what really pushes your buttons, and then be free to negotiate with your partner to specialize, and align your goals and responsibilities with your DNA impulses, to be more effective as a team.

It can go the other way. I have one male cousin married to a really clever girl. He is a naturally mellow guy who just can't get his head around the machiavellian games of senior management. He values money more than his personal male ego, and just loves the fact that his wife makes more money than he does. They have a healthy attitude to money and understand it is for decision space purposes rather than trying to impress anyone with their assets. I think he sort of feels he is somehow "getting away with something", or cheating the game in some way. He has a well paying technical non-management job.

She has a natural propensity for the higher game of bureaucracy and enjoys it, so they decided that he would cut back on his hours and take more of a role with the kids, and she would start investing in the overtime required to step into senior management. I see this as good analysis and team work. Forcing the classic role would have been ineffective with that marital team. Other women "shrink to fit" if they are dealing with a more fragile male ego. You have to bake the cake with what's in the pantry, and not waste too much time with utopian wishful thinking.

I think more imagination and flexibility in marital roles, on a win win basis, can go a long way to reducing marital ineffectiveness. Honest discussion about this sort of thing before you initiate the sex, infatuation, mortgage, marriage, children cycle would be in the category of profound effectiveness. One of the worst things in life is to invest in such a bond and spend the decision space of youth, and then discover an insurmountable pragmatic (or more rarely, a higher ruleset) limiting factor, years down the road or after a child has been created.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:52 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
twcjr wrote:
Men are hardwired to direct their energy towards the mastery of the outside world.


I'm sorry but this is so patriarchal I can barely stand it Tom. You do realize you are a westernized male coming at this correct? It's cute like Ted thinking his getting a bit more able to get around is because of his taking vitamin C rather than distance healing. Mastery of the outside world isn't a male thing Tom, that's what everyone does, see? Nothing is hardwired, our wiring is a result of our experiences with the stimuli we have experienced. There are structures of course, but our Reality, so what we direct our energy to, is dependent upon the meanings we have attached with the emotions (wiring) included, to information. You know that though.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:36 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:33 am
Posts: 366
Quote:
To what extent is gaming culture an imitation of reality but an offense to our masculine DNA? To what extent is feminist corporate warriorship empty materialism and an offense to the female's DNA?
Consider this perspective:

The criteria to determine success of mating strategies can be viewed from different perspectives. Is it number of individuals in the offspring? Is the lifelong happiness of the offspring? Is it likelihood of offspring itself to produce new healhty offspring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

There are various problems here. Consider environments with poverty, teenage pregnancies, single mothers, broken families, and so on. People from these environments tend to have more children and earlier, and the children themselves tend to be even more dysfunctional. This is how populations explode, and this is how crime and poverty is created. Because of their inability to invest in long term strategies, these communities/societies are not resistant to changes in the environment or outside threats. So evolution doesn't really approve, even though the numbers can grow quickly when resources are "abundant".

"Feminist corporate warriorship" as phenomenon tends to produce fewer children, and with higher rates mental/emotional problems due to having less direct and intimate relationships with their parents. Second generation from these parents tend to have few children themselves. Generally, evolution frowns upon this.

I think we can get a glimpse of evolution's (and thus our DNA's) ideal version of marriage (and society) by asking ourselves what sort of behaviour would we wish of our own parents? (In the next life, for example ...)

Societies generally don't conform to that ideal because it requires too much implicit agreement between individuals. What do we do with individuals who are unable to give their children the upbringing necessary for them to be good fellow citizens to my children? The fact that my children will have to participate in the same society as other irresponsible parents' children changes my incentives in mate-selection and parenting. "My children have to be able to succeed in a world where your children have become adults ..."

So it's not just about number of offspring, and it's not just about quality of offspring. It's more complicated and I think it's always been throughout history.

Beyond that, I think most mating decisions are based on ego. I have yet to meet or hear of a female who does not derive her sense of worth and security from either her man or her professional position, or who doesn't wine about having her "worth" defined by men. A woman who does not act out of ego is incredibly rare. And women are sexual selectors.

Ego is a response to human fears - and these exist in all cultures.

Evolution made women vulnerable and frail specifically for division of family duties. Why else? The love and respect that's required between a man and a women is a prerequisite for producing healthy children. Man provides protection, woman provides nurturing and this only works, and will only "feel right", if love and respect is mutual (and not need-based). Children must have this demonstrated to them in order for them to be emotionally fully functioning.

If society takes responsibility for rearing children, then there is no pressure on women to learn to respect men, and there is no pressure on men to be truly caring. Women will then seek to be distracted from their insecurities by various superficial activities - beauty, fame, fashion, casual sex, career, even such things as aid-work. Men will seek the sensation of control - through their careers, admiration, and womanizing.

I feel I'm not really getting my ideas across, but is a rough sketch.
Quote:
She has a natural propensity for the higher game of bureaucracy and enjoys it, so they decided that he would cut back on his hours and take more of a role with the kids, and she would start investing in the overtime required to step into senior management.
The problem with this approach is that it demonstrates impotent rolemodels to the children. The sons of men who are unassertive with women don't do well. Their daughters learn be distrustful (and maybe have contempt) of men. They won't have healthy models of affection demonstrated to them. The second generation will find it more difficult to mate successfully.

A boss at company does strategically better to promote females if all other things are equal, because it increases the chances of his own male offspring. Basically - it emasulcates at least one other male (the partner and sons of the promoted female) and that means less competition for himself and his own. The whole scenario can be translated into stone-age tribes and it makes sense.

The core of the hardcore feminist arguments is "because we have a modern technological society, evolution and biology don't matter." In a way that is true. If the wellbeing of our children doesn't matter - then what matters? Why not just be the last generation of humans and go off in a giant party/orgy and nuke the entire planet just as we orgasm?

(Weird ending, but here we go ...)


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:24 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:33 am
Posts: 366
Quote:
I'm sorry but this is so patriarchal I can barely stand it Tom. You do realize you are a westernized male coming at this correct?
In a way I agree - twcjr assumes that more is hardwired than is generally established.

And - it is possible to construct societies within our current biological constraints that are basically matriarchal.

The reason matriarchal societies are so extremely rare is that they have no resistance to outside forces. The children of women in matriarchal societies are basically:

- boys who are taught to be unasseritve
- girls who are taught that men are weak and untreathening

They have no way of exporting this culture. More assertive men will take the women, and the next generation will be back to patriarchy.

That's why matriarchy can only remain in isolation.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry but this is so patriarchal I can barely stand it Tom. You do realize you are a westernized male coming at this correct?
In a way I agree - twcjr assumes that more is hardwired than is generally established.

And - it is possible to construct societies within our current biological constraints that are basically matriarchal.

The reason matriarchal societies are so extremely rare is that they have no resistance to outside forces. The children of women in matriarchal societies are basically:

- boys who are taught to be unasseritve
- girls who are taught that men are weak and untreathening

They have no way of exporting this culture. More assertive men will take the women, and the next generation will be back to patriarchy.

That's why matriarchy can only remain in isolation.
Well I never suggested matriarchal, and doubt the validity of your information about matriarchal behaviors.

Everyone brings something to the table, try cooperative and equal making pragmatic use of different abilities not considering lack of a specific ability a weakness. Something new since that is what we need.

Of course Tom's book is about this mess.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:51 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Ocala, FL
I consider myself a feminist and I too am having a bit of trouble with Tom's take on the male/female dynamic so far. I am just waiting to see how he develops it down the road.

The genetic hard wiring got reinforced by cultural stereotypes and now woman are having a darn hard time breaking out of them. There was a 3 hour documentary on PBS the other night on the history of feminism in America (Makers:Women Who Make America) so I am particularly sensitive to this. http://video.pbs.org/program/makers-wom ... e-america/


I know men hate women saying this, but honestly I don't think a lot of you have a clue. A friend of mine was telling me a few days ago that in 1978 she couldn't rent an apartment on her own. She had to have her ex-husband co-sign for her.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:45 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:27 am
Posts: 164
na


Last edited by Delak on Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2088
Quote:
I consider myself a feminist and I too am having a bit of trouble with Tom's take on the male/female dynamic so far. I am just waiting to see how he develops it down the road.

The genetic hard wiring got reinforced by cultural stereotypes and now woman are having a darn hard time breaking out of them. There was a 3 hour documentary on PBS the other night on the history of feminism in America (Makers:Women Who Make America) so I am particularly sensitive to this. http://video.pbs.org/program/makers-wom ... e-america/


I know men hate women saying this, but honestly I don't think a lot of you have a clue. A friend of mine was telling me a few days ago that in 1978 she couldn't rent an apartment on her own. She had to have her ex-husband co-sign for her.
Linda,

It seems to me, that this is not genetic wiring Tom is describing. I would say, this is more like a gravitational force, and only a difference is that a gravitational force is a part of an assigned PMR rule set, and a gender hard wiring is an evolutional development. Tom said, it could be changed, and I think it will be changed. But right now this is still in action. Changes in a female role in society have begun not so long ago, 150 years or so. Our consciousness is changing, and along our evolution is changing too.

I don't see any unfairness in Tom's description male/female hardwiring. He repeatedly said, this is a rough description, and people don't have to and they don't fit into a scheme.

It is very important how we see ourselves. If Tom's words make one feel belittled, look for your ego and fear. If you are confident, that you are more, than any description or scheme, nothing can make one angy or uncomfortable in his observation.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:31 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 211
Location: Missouri
(The following is a review of a scholarly and meticulous essay written by Steven Goldberg, Ph.D., entitled, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (1993, Open Court). Dr. Goldberg is the Chairman of the Sociology Department at City University of New York.)

Of all social institutions, there is probably none whose universality is granted so unanimously by anthropologists as patriarchy. Dr. Goldberg defines patriarchy as the occupation, by males, of the overwhelming percentage of upper heirarchical positions in political and other heirarchies. "There is not, nor has there ever been, any society that even remotely failed to associate authority and leadership in suprafamilial areas with the male. There are no borderline cases." He says there has never been a matriarchy. "If the reader insists on maintaining a belief in a once-existent matriarchal society, all we can do is demand evidence more convincing than his desire that there should have been one."

Three factors are universal throughout all known cultures: patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment. He argues that these tendencies are manifestations of neuro-endocrinological differences between men and women, and that male dominance serves obvious survival functions.

"There is an enormous amount of evidence," he says, "which demonstrates beyond doubt that the testicularly-generated fetal hormonalization of the male central nervous system promotes earlier and more extensive maturation of the brain structures that mediate between male hormones and dominance behavior; this makes the male hypersensitive to the presence, later on, of the hormones which energize dominance emotions and behavior, and result in his stronger tendency to respond to the environment with dominance behavior."

Wherever there is a hierarchy, high-status role, or member of the opposite sex present, he says, the male more readily and more strongly responds with:

1) Competitiveness (the impulse for attainment and dominance);
2) Relative suppression of other emotions and needs, and a sacrifice of rewards (health, family, relaxation and so forth) that conflict with the need for attainment and dominance;
3) Whatever actions are required for attainment of the aforementioned position, status, and dominance. (Society, he says, conforms to nature by recognizing and institutionalizing this male ambition.)

Socialization "does not consist primarily of parents telling little boys to be 'aggressive' and little girls to be 'nurturant'-- these tendencies exist without socialization -- but of developing the skills and attitudes that make best use of such tendencies as already exist." He adds, "To believe that males should not have a stronger dominance tendency...is to hope for the impossible."

Michael


Last edited by MichaelCaldwell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:51 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 536
There will always be a mixture of yin forces and yang forces in a given system. Here we have individuals oriented towards cultivation, conservation, sustenance, and passivity; and individuals oriented towards collection, force, initiation, and activity. For most of the evolutionary history of humans, one sex predominately tends to be compelled to act with a preponderance--but never an absolute--of one of those forces. The male body and brain has evolved to prefer yang energy; the female body and brain has evolved to prefer yin energy. I suppose this is so because that was the most effective evolutionary tool to ensure humans survived.

But as Lena said, things can change. The idea that female ambition to lead is some kind of perversion that needs to be reversed is, of course, our old friends fear and ego rearing their ugly heads. It is possible for a unit of consciousness incarnated as a female to resist her genetic programming and act with a preponderance of yang energy, thus pushing evolution in a different direction. In a truly balanced society, yang and yin energy will be equally distributed among the sexes, and it is possible we are evolving in that direction as we become less focused on struggling to survive, and more focused on building healthy, sustainable, loving communities.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:50 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Florario/Ontorida
part of it is which lens you are viewing the paradigm.

I believe that if you look at this PMR through the eternal lens of the QoC digestor, and what really matters, the planet is a matriarchy.

It is only a patriarchy in things superficial, things that do not persist beyond the end the simulation cycle.

All of the male dominant stuff, the toys, the ambition, all these things are wiped out like a Tibetan Sand Painting.

95% of the crafting of souls comes from the child raising experience, with the male contributing perhaps 5% to this process.

And the wife at the table or in bed saying...."wait a minute", and constantly reminding the male of higher ruleset considerations.

The actual President of Things-that-Actually-Matter at this moment is Micheal Obama, as she is responsible for over watching Obama's decisions and higher ruleset weighting.

When you shift focus in this way, the astute woman thinks, let the boys have all these superficial things, the corner office, being in charge, I have more important work to do, and their predisposition for such things "frees me up", if one of them can be convinced to focus on this and take care of paying the mortgage.

If spirituality is true...this works. If spirituality or MBT is simply a comforting delusion, this is part of the con the feminist materialist mind fears.

Of course, the astute man learns these same truths, somewhat more slowly, and gravitates toward the feminine arts of living, so as to not be left out of the real eternal fun.

Part of this relates to reality and self interest and pushing real buttons rather than constructing delusion. It becomes ugly if a male patriarchy decides to use this information for prejudice or to constrain the decision space of a female professionally.

Equally so in matriarchal institutions where I experienced "state sanctioned" prejudice. I actually made a report to my Deputy Minister (oh, about 5 levels above my pay grade) on how the Department was doing regarding force fitting females into management, even if that meant reducing requirements for experience and education.

We ran out of plausible females in our Department to become Directors (i.e. former admin assistants to senior staff) so they found some 30 somethings without grad school from another Department and field to become the bosses of the end-of-career guys with PhDs and 25 years experience in the field.

One can make observations to inform better choices, but love requires supporting and protecting any female (or male) in their choices and ambitions, where they choose to invest their energy, and never trying to constrain someone else's decision space based on your belief.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
I know men hate women saying this, but honestly I don't think a lot of you have a clue. A friend of mine was telling me a few days ago that in 1978 she couldn't rent an apartment on her own. She had to have her ex-husband co-sign for her.
Yes, and in the Federal Government of Canada, not too many decades back, once a woman married, she was required to resign from her position.

The thing is, much of the former structures arose out of pragmatic considerations and the realities of the monetized versus non-monetized parts of the economy.

The female specialized in the economy of the home, child care, cleaning, cooking, gardening, possibly directing household staff, where there was no financial exchange or measurement of her contribution, and the male went out into the field to make grain to sell to the economy, or went down into the coal mine for a paycheck, so his contribution was monetized, and society and landlords adapted to this arrangement.

Then things shift and change, and some players are slower to adapt and get behind reality, so you get these structural anomalies like women not being able to sign a lease, especially in the smaller slower towns, especially with older dudes who are stuck in the world the way it was when they were 30 years old.

Its not like there is an organized patriarchy trying to figure out how to torment women. Investing brain cells in attention to such negative anomalies may be fear which undermines the task of reducing anger and separation between the sexes. You had to reach back several decades to bring out that datapoint. That being said, like any relationship, we do need to get the anger out and talk it through, rather than suppress.

Ideally, MBT will foster understanding of scientific-based context and intent of apparent bizarre behavior, and create a climate where MBT females and males can negotiate beneficial cooperative arrangements that are efficient and make efficient tradeoffs between Paleo hard wiring (which can only be catered to or suffered), acquired and manipulable soft-wiring, up-to-date pragmaticism and the eternal higher ruleset.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:28 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6501
Location: Ocala, FL
Let me be clear that I understand I am talking culturally and not the genetic hard wiring that Tom has been writing about. And the essay by Steven Goldberg, Ph.D., is interesting and no doubt correct. But in the end we have to deal with genetic and cultural forces. And men, thanks in large part to their genetic hard wiring - do not want to give up their dominant roll even with a cultural push by women. Some of this might change as other things are rapidly changing because the old guard with their old cultural stereotypes is dying off. I think many modern men (as evidence of the ones writing here) are understanding the logic,reason, and advantage for a cultural change.

I believe that some women's frustration and anger at male dominance has in a few cases turned to hate, but in most cases I think it is just more anger. How long to you have to wait for things like equal pay?

What was interesting about the documentary that I mentioned previously is that the fire-brand enthusiasm of the feminists of the 70s and 80s is completely lacking in their daughters - much to the dismay of the mothers. I think it is unfortunate that probably most young women today have no idea what the women before them went through to get the basic legislation through that contributes to the life they take for granted now.

It is very alarming to me to see the push in this country by the right - mainly old, white, men to roll back many of the hard fought rights of women. They are attacking equal pay, abortion, and birth control to name the most prominent issues. For heavens sake 22 Republicans voted against the Violence Against Women Act!

And women in the US and other modern societies are centuries ahead of the women in Muslim controlled countries.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 524 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited