• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Myth of Male Power[W:166,W:829]

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

If you need to believe as much, then enjoy yourself. You're not harming anyone.

As to procreation, biotechnology stands on the cusp of making pregnancy obsolete.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?



Historically, yes.

Currently... well, one could debate whether current society really resembles the classical gender model at all. Less and less every year, I'd say.


One sometimes wonders if this will turn out to be something of a mistake on our part, to future archeologists.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

Patriarchy isn't simply a model of male power. It is also a model of class structural power. Men who aren't at the top are considered expendable, and are used for the benefit of men in a higher class.

However, consider something else. Just because women, in this model, are considered to be a valuable resource DOESN'T mean that they aren't also considered a lower class.

Let's take American slavery. I am not comparing the two apples-for-apples. I'm simply using it to demonstrate the concept, since it's the clearest form of it that comes to mind.

Having slaves was an investment. They made it possible to generate more profit expending less money. It was in the slave owner's interest to keep his slaves in good enough shape to work.

In this model, it is actually the slave owner who is expendable. Any white man could have owned them. It wouldn't matter. All that mattered was that the plantation made money, through valuable slaves.

But that doesn't mean that the slave owner wasn't in a position of power.

The very mindset of considering a human being to be merely a "resource" is degrading their humanity.

And yes, considering men to be more expendable is as well. But men had more choices about how to expend themselves. Women had to be confined to a set of pre-destined uses in which they were considered valuable.

Patriarchy isn't a great deal for the majority of men, as you have aptly pointed out. But it certainly doesn't put women in a position of power. In a patriarchal model, women are only protected for as long as they continue to adhere to their "purpose," as decided by men.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?

Why do you think women were subjugated in most primitive cultures and in many current religious cultures? Men have always known that women are the most powerful and worked very hard to "correct" it. There are some who believe the Catholic church was actuallly founded by Mary and "hijacked" by men after her death. That's why women are forbidden from being priests to this day.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?

Well what about genetic diversity? Sure one guy can get 10 women pregnant in pretty much the same amount of time 10 guys could, but that doesn't lead to offspring as diverse as 10 men would have been able to provide.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Not to mention, it's the male contribution that determines the sex of the child.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

Patriarchy isn't simply a model of male power. It is also a model of class structural power. Men who aren't at the top are considered expendable, and are used for the benefit of men in a higher class.

However, consider something else. Just because women, in this model, are considered to be a valuable resource DOESN'T mean that they aren't also considered a lower class.

Let's take American slavery. I am not comparing the two apples-for-apples. I'm simply using it to demonstrate the concept, since it's the clearest form of it that comes to mind.

Having slaves was an investment. They made it possible to generate more profit expending less money. It was in the slave owner's interest to keep his slaves in good enough shape to work.

In this model, it is actually the slave owner who is expendable. Any white man could have owned them. It wouldn't matter. All that mattered was that the plantation made money, through valuable slaves.

But that doesn't mean that the slave owner wasn't in a position of power.

The very mindset of considering a human being to be merely a "resource" is degrading their humanity.

And yes, considering men to be more expendable is as well. But men had more choices about how to expend themselves. Women had to be confined to a set of pre-destined uses in which they were considered valuable.

Patriarchy isn't a great deal for the majority of men, as you have aptly pointed out. But it certainly doesn't put women in a position of power. In a patriarchal model, women are only protected for as long as they continue to adhere to their "purpose," as decided by men.

And since the model you've described does not in any way correspond to reality, we can safely say it's just a model.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

And since the model you've described does not in any way correspond to reality, we can safely say it's just a model.

Ok, Graff. Patriarchy never existed, women could always vote, and evidently, you are feeling unloved lately. Feel better? :lol:
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Ok, Graff. Patriarchy never existed, women could always vote, and evidently, you are feeling unloved lately. Feel better? :lol:

You can always bust a dominant male...
 
Well what about genetic diversity? Sure one guy can get 10 women pregnant in pretty much the same amount of time 10 guys could, but that doesn't lead to offspring as diverse as 10 men would have been able to provide.

Diversity is a new concept. If we were to experience a bottle necked population...diversity would be irrelevant. It would be about survival. And if that happens...we would need more women than men to correct it.
 
If you need to believe as much, then enjoy yourself. You're not harming anyone.

As to procreation, biotechnology stands on the cusp of making pregnancy obsolete.

Always gonna need a man and a woman to get that DNA from.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Always gonna need a man and a woman to get that DNA from.
The same way we needed someone's ear to glue to that unfortunate mouse?
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Why do you think women were subjugated in most primitive cultures and in many current religious cultures? Men have always known that women are the most powerful and worked very hard to "correct" it. There are some who believe the Catholic church was actuallly founded by Mary and "hijacked" by men after her death. That's why women are forbidden from being priests to this day.

Women were "subjugated" because they ceded power to men in pre-history. Women had to focus on childbearing, because they were the ones who gave birth. Because men were not encumbered with a pregnancy nine months out of the year, it made sense for men to be the hunter/gatherers and leaders while women focused on maternity. Women obviously realized this was the logical way to go about things and went along with it.

I laugh when these feminists complain about patriarchy, when in fact women were just as much responsible for the existence of it as men were. I suppose you could say mother nature had a role in its creation, too. This idea of men realizing womens' latent power and wanting to oppress them because of it is total nonsense and is rhetoric straight out of a late 1960's NOW meeting.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Women were "subjugated" because they ceded power to men in pre-history. Women had to focus on childbearing, because they were the ones who gave birth. Because men were not encumbered with a pregnancy nine months out of the year, it made sense for men to be the hunter/gatherers and leaders while women focused on maternity. Women obviously realized this was the logical way to go about things and went along with it.

I laugh when these feminists complain about patriarchy, when in fact women were just as much responsible for the existence of it as men were. I suppose you could say mother nature had a role in its creation, too. This idea of men realizing womens' latent power and wanting to oppress them because of it is total nonsense and is rhetoric straight out of a late 1960's NOW meeting.

Actually, in most of prehistory, women never got pregnant more than 3 or 4 times in their entire lives. They spent most of their life... not pregnant. And not nursing an infant. And with an entire tribe of people who traded off childrearing communally. And when they did have an infant, they often just strapped them on and continued with their normal activities. Their roles in their tribes often led them quite far away from home.

The most likely cause of patriarchy is the body fat changes that occurred due to agriculture, resulting in unnaturally high fertility, and leaving women vulnerable to subjugation. Women never "agreed" to any such arrangement.

This imbalance is correcting itself, by force of human will, using birth control and social change.

Women were never, by nature, in a submissive position to men. It is actually our unnatural modes of living that made this possible.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?

Well, biologically this may be true, just because of the dynamics of how human reproduction work; but biological determinism is a weak argument for flaws in the social order. Men may be more expendable but they have more freedom to choose. Women have not been given that choice, classically. A woman's value ended as soon as she stopped conforming, and heaven forbid she got pregnant outside of marriage.

The patriarchal model does not function along biological lines. It's about power, control, and domination. It cuts both ways, affecting men and women. People too often make the mistake of thinking that feminism is just about women when it's about debunking the social controls that affect all genders.

Goshin said:
One sometimes wonders if this will turn out to be something of a mistake on our part, to future archeologists.

I don't really get this POV. After WWII the inclusion of women in working society increased economic output greatly, and increased standard of living for everyone. All evidence shows that when women are given the freedom to choose their path, nations do better, and that includes if women still choose to be homemakers and stay at home moms.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Women were never, by nature, in a submissive position to men. It is actually our unnatural modes of living that made this possible.

Gender relations place females in a submissive position to males in virtually every species of overtly social great ape we are aware of.

Why on earth would early humans have been any sort of exception to this?

Frankly, women do not possess anything remotely approaching "equality" even in the hunter-gatherer societies to which you refer. Men still do the vast majority of the hunting, and inhabit virtually all major positions of authority.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Gender relations place females in a submissive position to males in virtually every species of overtly social great ape we are aware of.

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bonobo (/bəˈnoʊboʊ/ or /ˈbɒnəboʊ/), Pan paniscus, formerly called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee,[3] is a great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan; the other is Pan troglodytes, or the common chimpanzee. Although the name "chimpanzee" is sometimes used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the common chimpanzee, while Pan paniscus is usually referred to as the bonobo.

Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal and a male's rank in the social hierarchy is often determined by his mother's rank.

Apes also throw their feces at others. Maybe men should start doing the same
 
Re: Myth of Male Power


Bonobos are an exception to this rule and only remarkable as such.

All of recorded human history, and everything we know about generalized human behavior, rather thoroughly quashes the idea that we could have anything in common with them.

Apes also throw their feces at others. Maybe men should start doing the same

No, we throw cruise missiles and hand grenades instead. :roll:
 
Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?

Yep it's true. Take a near apocalyptic event left with a founder population of 100 people for a new society. Which has a better prognosis, a population of 95 women and 5 men or a population of 95 men and 5 women? I think we can all agree that the former survives based on biology.

Funnily enough, I believe the minority in either population would wield disproportionate power in relation to to their respective majority's.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Bonobos are an exception to this rule and only remarkable as such.

And humans are the exceptional ape.

but you go ahead and keep arguing that our behaviors should be modeled on the behaviors of apes.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

Always gonna need a man and a woman to get that DNA from.

Well, it's possible to do without males for mice (with current tech), but not so much for humans. It seems that we males are still necessary.

Two females can't fertilize a human egg right

Q: I just read the fascinating USA Today story about the monkey embryo created by parthenogenetic reproduction (where an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual: common among insects). Is it possible to take the chromosomes from one female egg and inject them into another female egg so they attach and actually form a fertilized egg? --Stan C., Naples, Florida

A: It probably is not possible with humans but we have done it with mice. We have moved the entire cell nucleus from one mouse egg to another mouse egg and joined them to form an embryo. The resulting embryo had no chromosomes from a father but it was a fertilized egg.

It kind of works in the mouse, except chromosomes have different properties depending on whether they come from the male (sperm) or female (egg/oocyte), says Michael Tucker of Georgia Reproductive Specialists.

That's the rub. Reproduction in mice and men evolved using both male and female genes in conjunction, complementing each other. When male chromosomes are missing, things don't always work well and sometimes catastrophically. The fetus dies.

Let's wander into a cell and see where and why things go wrong. A cell's nucleus contains a tangled structure called the chromatin. When the cell divides, the chromatin condenses into 23 (for humans) distinct entities called chromosomes. The microscopic chromosomes occur in matched pairs (one from each parent) and each chromosome contains many genes that also occur in matched pairs. Offspring inherit one-half of their genes from each parent and then mix the two sets of genes together to form an unique individual.

Before the fertilized egg divides, it duplicates each chromosome. A tiny DNA filament connects each duplicate chromosome pair in the middle. See figure.

When the cell divides, the centrisome (a part of the sperm outside the nucleus) organizes the division so it happens right. The centrisome splits into two poles that move to opposite ends of the cell. It also establishes a long rod at each pole. The chromosomes align along each rod and point to the opposite pole: like spread-apart fingers of two hands, barely touching at the fingertips. The cell pulls apart each chromosome duplicate pair, like separating hands. See figure. The cell divides along a line about half-way between the two poles and each new cell has a full, proper system of chromosomes.

Without this organizing system from the male, the chromosomes will scatter throughout the cell. Consequently, when the cell divides, the resulting daughter cells will not have a complete and proper chromosome set. Subsequent cell divisions will compound the mess and not form a viable embryo.

That's why fertilization that results in a fertilized egg containing only-female chromosomes will probably not work for humans.

Two females can't fertilize a human egg right
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.

A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?

Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?

I would prefer to look at people as individuals and determine value from there. Why are women invaluable? Because we can have babies? Well we can't have them by ourselves you know! :lamo

All I know is that I have a son, and he is the MOST valuable thing in the world to me.
 
Re: Myth of Male Power

And humans are the exceptional ape.

We are exceptional in our ability to bend nature to our will, exterminate competing species, and massacre one another in the most time, resource, and labor efficient manner possible.

If anything, our approach to gender relations and social issues is bog standard for what might be expected from any reasonably social higher mammal. The simple fact of the matter is that males, unless they simply happen to not be around, are usually the dominant gender in nature, and generally conform to some sort of loosely defined social hierarchy (alpha, beta, omega, etca).

Human society displays all of these characteristics in abundance, and always has.
 
Last edited:
Re: Myth of Male Power

Actually, in most of prehistory, women never got pregnant more than 3 or 4 times in their entire lives. They spent most of their life... not pregnant. And not nursing an infant. And with an entire tribe of people who traded off childrearing communally. And when they did have an infant, they often just strapped them on and continued with their normal activities. Their roles in their tribes often led them quite far away from home.

The most likely cause of patriarchy is the body fat changes that occurred due to agriculture, resulting in unnaturally high fertility, and leaving women vulnerable to subjugation. Women never "agreed" to any such arrangement.

Now I've heard it all. Women were subjugated because they got fat. Gee, maybe they could have controlled their own fertility by, I don't know, timing their periods or just not having sex.
 
Back
Top Bottom