question
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
howsabout locking this waste-of-space non-thread?
You mean like never opening a door for a woman?
(More extreme: Jumping into the lifeboat in front of the women and children?)
In which case, you're going to have a lot of trouble with things like basic courtship rituals.
Er...how about opening a door for anyone, regardless of sex?
And if women think that I should be prepared to acknowledge my life is less important than theirs simply because I'm a disposable male, then it is they who will have trouble with courtship rituals. As it is, I have very good relationships with most women, because most women no longer hold such outdated and unacceptable views.
I mean, really, what century are we living in?
Last edited:
^ Opening a door for somebody indicates that your life is less important than theirs? No. Surely I'm misreading you here. It's just a polite thing to do - for women/ladies (in the case of men/gentlemen), for people carrying packages and/or children, for people who just happen to be behind you, for people who will have trouble with the door for whatever reason, for somebody for no reason at all...there are a lot of reasons to hold a door open for somebody, and absolutely none of them involve valuing one person's life over another's.
I was talking about the lifeboats with regards to valuing life.
Yes, I see I should have been clearer.And it's polite to hold open a door for anyone. I open doors for men and women, because, you know, it's polite, and politeness should extend to all.
I was talking about the lifeboats with regards to valuing life.
Actually, "women and children first" isn't based on the principle that a woman's life or a child's life has more value than a man's. Jeez, women weren't even allowed to vote and in many cases they couldn't own property back when this principle was established - and children were little more than property.
It is instead based on the principle that the strong have an obligation to protect the weak. Men were supposed to be stronger than women (and usually were, in actual fact) and most were definitely stronger than children. Therefore, they were supposed to protect those weaker than themselves.
And the strong still does have that obligation, in my opinion. It's just that these days, we don't judge weakness merely on the basis of sex, or at least I hope not.
I was talking about the lifeboats with regards to valuing life.
Actually, "women and children first" isn't based on the principle that a woman's life or a child's life has more value than a man's. Jeez, women weren't even allowed to vote and in many cases they couldn't own property back when this principle was established - and children were little more than property.
It is instead based on the principle that the strong have an obligation to protect the weak. Men were supposed to be stronger than women (and usually were, in actual fact) and most were definitely stronger than children. Therefore, they were supposed to protect those weaker than themselves.
And the strong still does have that obligation, in my opinion. It's just that these days, we don't judge weakness merely on the basis of sex, or at least I hope not.
I must disagree there. It's not about strength and weakness. Society's insistance that men were strong and women weak was simply a means of justifying the distinct social roles men and women were assigned to. Men who were viewed as "weak" were not- and usually still are not- valued and protected, but rather treated with disdain, even hatred, by their societies. Women viewed as "too strong" were vilified and condemned. So it was never about any true perceptions of strong or weak, those were simply the excuses. Women weren't necessarilly seen as weak, men as strong, that's simply how people insisted it should be. They wanted it seen that way to justify the social order that prevented women voting or holding property, or justified sacrificing their men and boys in battles and in defense of women.
Of course, for the primitive developing civilization, it was essential that men dedicate themselves to providing resources for their women, and protecting the women. Biologically, women are considerably more valuable than men, speaking relatively. They have wombs they have breasts, they carry the babies. If a woman dies, it is a blow to the tribe as it reduces the number of babies they can make. If her husband dies, it does not; some other man can claim her as an additional wife and impregnate both women. The tribe can afford to lose considerably more males than it can females. This is why nature places males in the role of foragers, hunters and defenders; the dangerous stuff. Men are, relatively speaking, expendable and disposable, which is how society treats them (wars and so on). However, this social system is no longer necessary. We have achieved a civilization where survival is no longer a constant struggle against the odds. It is no longer necessary to keep our men in the provider/protector role, which comes as a great relief to me. I have freedoms and advantages my male ancestors did not (just as, thanks to the original woman’s movement, my female peers have great advantages over their predecessors).
I was talking about the lifeboats with regards to valuing life.
Actually, "women and children first" isn't based on the principle that a woman's life or a child's life has more value than a man's. Jeez, women weren't even allowed to vote and in many cases they couldn't own property back when this principle was established - and children were little more than property.
It is instead based on the principle that the strong have an obligation to protect the weak. Men were supposed to be stronger than women (and usually were, in actual fact) and most were definitely stronger than children. Therefore, they were supposed to protect those weaker than themselves.
And the strong still does have that obligation, in my opinion. It's just that these days, we don't judge weakness merely on the basis of sex, or at least I hope not.
I must disagree there. It's not about strength and weakness. Society's insistance that men were strong and women weak was simply a means of justifying the distinct social roles men and women were assigned to.
Deranged, I am not talking about what it is about - I'm talking about what it was about back when the principle of "women and children first" was originally popularized, and what it was about was the weak protecting the strong. What exactly do you disagree with there?
To a certain extent, I'd say that's what it's still about now - at least when we are talking about extreme situations such as sinking ships. Sure, that's about social roles - it's about men believing their role is protecting women and children. There is nothing in there about whose life is more valuable, unless perhaps it's the lives of children.
But women carry and birth the children, and traditionally were the ones caring for them. So, their lives are considered more valuable due to association with the children. That's what "women and children" is about- the two groups lumped into one group, because traditionally women's primary role (in most cases) was to care for children- the two groups were always together. Okay, I certainly see your point (and a very accurate point it is), that the people engaging in the behaviour aren't actually evaluating it in those terms. As you say, it is simply their conforming to cultural roles. The roles had their original basis in biological value, however, and in related cultural value that placed women in association with children.
And I would suggest there was never a view of men as naturally and always strong, women as naturally/always weak. Otherwise our literature throughout the ages wouldn't be filled with warnings about women who are "too strong" and why they are supposedly immoral and must be shunned, or "cowardly" men and boys who shame masculinity by allowing themselves to be weak. I myself have even been physically beaten in the past in order to "toughen me up". Men have never been viewed as strong or women as weak, there's only been a demand that society act as though that is the case. As you say, hopefully that's starting to change.
it's a biological fact that the male is typically stronger than the female in many species.
women's abilities to kick ass notwithstanding.
women's abilities to kick ass notwithstanding.
I don't think history agrees with your analysis 100 percent, Deranged. In many times and places where food isn't/wasn't very abundant, it was warriors who got the best food always, because while long-term survival requires a new generation, everybody's immediate welfare depends on strong healthy warriors. Of course, they are also the first ones killed, I realize, but still, saying "women were more valued" depends entirely on your definition of "valuable," and that is highly dependent on circumstances.
I cannot personally think of a single society, though probably one or more exists or has existed, in which warriors weren't highly valued. On the other hand, I can think of plenty, as you no doubt can as well, where women were baby-makers and baby-tenders and nothing more.
Which is more valuable? It depends on whether your primary emphasis at a given moment is on long-term or short-term survival. Short-term, the warriors win, almost always. Biologically (though not emotionally) speaking, if you live through the battle, you can always find yourself a new mate and the tribe/clan/whatever goes on (assuming that it's patriarchal rather than matriarchal). But if the warriors are all gone, so is the tribe/clan/whatever.
It goes beyond warriors, too. In many, many cultures over the millenia, men (who for everybody's sake had to work hard and therefore had to be strong) sat down and ate first, while women (and children, for that matter) waited on them. The women and children ate only after the men finished. And if there wasn't enough food, it was the women and children who did without.
This was the case at times in the history of my own country - Colonial times, for example, and during the expansion into the west. Of course not all families followed it - there were no doubt fathers and brothers who said, "Hell, no, I'm not going to eat the best food - everybody's going to share and share alike," but I assure you it was quite common for men to be fed better than women and children. And the reason is that the family's welfare depended on a strong man doing hard work, and you can't do hard work if you haven't had enough to eat. Does that really sound as though women were more "valued"?
I think it's often this way in agrarian cultures - and for the same reason. The one doing the hard work has to be fed better to keep doing the hard work that keeps everybody from going hungry.
In cultures where men traditionally have many wives and concubines...do you really think they were considered "more valuable"? 'Cause I don't.
I think that "women and children first" as an active principle is more often found in cultures with more abundance than the ones you describe as "primitive." It's almost a luxury, really - a luxury born of abundance during times when people had enough to eat and therefore had the leisure to worry about things like the strong protecting the weak.
Again, I disagree, at least somewhat. For one thing, I have myself never read any warnings against physically strong women - strong willed, sure. But the physical standard was and still is that generally speaking, men are stronger than women. Which is clearly true, though there are exceptions yadda yadda yadda.
As for the rest of your point, yes, there are warnings against women who are too strong-willed or too intellectual, but...the warnings were necessary, wouldn't you say, because such women were considered unnatural and thus somewhat rare?
The way it was supposed to work - the way that was considered most normal - was a strong man (strong in almost every way) protecting a weaker woman and their weaker children. In some societies, women ("good" women, that is) might be morally stronger, but in terms of physical and intellectual strength, men were supposed to be superior. And its in those societies, I think, that principles such as "women and children first" became widespread.
I cannot personally think of a single society, though probably one or more exists or has existed, in which warriors weren't highly valued. On the other hand, I can think of plenty, as you no doubt can as well, where women were baby-makers and baby-tenders and nothing more.
Which is more valuable? It depends on whether your primary emphasis at a given moment is on long-term or short-term survival. Short-term, the warriors win, almost always. Biologically (though not emotionally) speaking, if you live through the battle, you can always find yourself a new mate and the tribe/clan/whatever goes on (assuming that it's patriarchal rather than matriarchal). But if the warriors are all gone, so is the tribe/clan/whatever.
It goes beyond warriors, too. In many, many cultures over the millenia, men (who for everybody's sake had to work hard and therefore had to be strong) sat down and ate first, while women (and children, for that matter) waited on them. The women and children ate only after the men finished. And if there wasn't enough food, it was the women and children who did without.
This was the case at times in the history of my own country - Colonial times, for example, and during the expansion into the west. Of course not all families followed it - there were no doubt fathers and brothers who said, "Hell, no, I'm not going to eat the best food - everybody's going to share and share alike," but I assure you it was quite common for men to be fed better than women and children. And the reason is that the family's welfare depended on a strong man doing hard work, and you can't do hard work if you haven't had enough to eat. Does that really sound as though women were more "valued"?
I think it's often this way in agrarian cultures - and for the same reason. The one doing the hard work has to be fed better to keep doing the hard work that keeps everybody from going hungry.
In cultures where men traditionally have many wives and concubines...do you really think they were considered "more valuable"? 'Cause I don't.
I think that "women and children first" as an active principle is more often found in cultures with more abundance than the ones you describe as "primitive." It's almost a luxury, really - a luxury born of abundance during times when people had enough to eat and therefore had the leisure to worry about things like the strong protecting the weak.
Again, I disagree, at least somewhat. For one thing, I have myself never read any warnings against physically strong women - strong willed, sure. But the physical standard was and still is that generally speaking, men are stronger than women. Which is clearly true, though there are exceptions yadda yadda yadda.
As for the rest of your point, yes, there are warnings against women who are too strong-willed or too intellectual, but...the warnings were necessary, wouldn't you say, because such women were considered unnatural and thus somewhat rare?
The way it was supposed to work - the way that was considered most normal - was a strong man (strong in almost every way) protecting a weaker woman and their weaker children. In some societies, women ("good" women, that is) might be morally stronger, but in terms of physical and intellectual strength, men were supposed to be superior. And its in those societies, I think, that principles such as "women and children first" became widespread.
Physically, in terms of raw strength, yes, of course the male human is typically stronger.
But raw physical power alone means little, as I think you youself just acknowledged with your "women's ability to kick ass" comment. Also, in some other physiological matters, males are in fact "weaker" than females. Medical professionals have often pointed out that males are the "weaker" sex in many ways, particularly during childhood and infancy.
And there are many ways of defining strength beyond the physical. Again, in some of these ways some studies have suggested females may be typically "stronger".
You are of course right that the man's typically greater physical power indeed played a role in determining gender roles. The traditional insistance that men be defined as "strong" and women "weak", however wasn't based on anything other than wishful thinking, as part of a desire to justify keeping the sexes in their stricyly defined roles. The sheer number of characters in literature and other aspects of culture that show "strong" women and "weak" men (usually to condemn them) demonstrates that society was actually quite aware the restrictive labels weren't accurate.
May I just say, JustKate, it's a pleasure to read such a thoughtful, informed response.
Your points about warriors and the high value they were assigned are, I acknowledge, quite convincing, as is your analysis of human gender roles. It's so gratifying to read a response that demands I reconsider a few points on this subject. Thank you very much for taking the time. You youself have just said it was the family's wellfare that was valued, and it is this that underlies the value placed on the adult male. The man is indeed on the surface more valued, but only because of what he can do for the family- meaning primarily the children, yes, but also the women, whose social role is to care for and raise the children, and be protected and provided for by the men if only because of these tasks. It is no secret that most human societies have, outwardly, insisted males are of higher value, for reasons you have just articulated wonderfully. However, the overall goal of the society is to provide for the women and children. The men would not be valued if there are no women and children for them to provide for and dedicate themselves to protecting. The history of valuing males is as mask which hides a face of placing those other than adult males first. Young men sent off to fight to keep women and children safe are told they have a dignified role in protecting the "weak" and fighting for others, but there is not in fact any dignity in it. It's simply how their role is painted to prevent young men protesting about their mistreatment. That certainly doesn't change what you point out about women being sacrificed "for the greater good" on occassion. However, biologically women are more valuable when it comes to breeding. Breeding is always any species' first concern, and losing males is less troublesome in regards to that concern than losing females. Female lives were usually valued above men's for that simple reason. You're quite right it's not very dignified to the women, either, but as you say women's "purpose" was seen to be producing babies. Dignity and respect for either men or women was not really anyone's concern, as we know. Our ancestors couldn't afford it.
Well, the point about polygamy is that nature produces near 50/50 in terms of biological sex, and if a man takes 6 wives, what about the other 5 men? So, while that patriarch may be highly valued, the majority of men are not. In fact, they might as well not be there at all. A viable breeding population requires considerably less males than females. The majority of lower-status males are excess, and treated accordingly, which is why humans have been able to wage near-continuous war over the millennia. The gains to the patriarch and his harem of women and children from warfare outweigh his losses when lower-status, potential competitor males are lost fighting and pillaging for him.
Again, you make good points. However, and I'm sorry to stubbonly dig in like this in the face of such a convincing argument (my knowledge of history is not good enough to confirm or refute that last thought), but the phrase "women and children", and the concept behind it is still gravely offensive. In practice it places a woman's life above a man's, even if it is not agreed that the theory originates in such simplistic analysis.
Last edited:
You're welcome. It's been quite interesting, actually, and a pleasure for me as well. And you've made me think, too...though I must admit I haven't changed my mind much.
But I've thought, and that's a good thing. I'll echo you and say that you articulate this very well...but I just can't buy it. I cannot - literally cannot - see how a society (and as you know there are and were many such societies) can at the same "value" women more and still say, "But you still have to go to the back of the food line and if we run short, you're the one who's going to walk away a little hungry" and also "And you have few if any rights." Those two concepts - being both of less value and yet somehow of more value - just don't fit together.
If they are indeed a way to fool men into thinking they are more important, than all I can say is, society is a lot sneakier than I ever gave it credit for.
You say young men's role "has been painted to prevent young men protesting about their mistreatment." But...who's doing the painting? "Society" all by itself is incapable of painting anything. People are - but which people? Women? Older men? Why would older men want to penalize their sons and nephews and grandsons? If women have this power, why can't I see it? This just doesn't fit for me.
You talk about biology a lot here, and of course biology greatly affects how a society and its attitudes are shaped. But it clearly isn't the only thing shaping and affecting societies, and I think you're overestimating its importance. If the only thing that affected your society and mine was biology, would those societies look the way they do now? I say no. If all we cared about was perpetuating the species or perpetuating our own genetic lines, which is what biology demands of us, we'd still be killing "the unfit," as people used to do. And we don't do that, do we? At least we damn well better not, unless we want to go to jail. Nor would we have birth control. And we might very well not have monogamy at all. There are a whole bunch of things that are commonly accepted by both of our societies that are not geared toward propagation of the species.
Another issue I have with your assumption is that women equal "the family/clan/unit," or that they are at least the most important part of it. But...they don't and they aren't, at least not always. The family/clan/unit is everybody, male, female, young, old, middle-aged. That one of men's primary roles historically has been that of protecting and providing for the family/clan/unit is undeniable. But women are just a part of that unit, and depending on the individual society, they might be a pretty small part. I cannot cite a reference so take this with a big grain of salt, but I believe I've heard of societies (and not just one or two) in which men consider their children a far more important asset than those children's mothers. Heck, there are probably societies in which men consider their livestock a far more important asset.
Well, for one thing, nature doesn't exactly produce near 50/50 in terms of males to females. The U.S., for example, had in 2000 (the latest census) slightly more females than males (50.9% vs. 49.1%), and when you look at females and males over age 21, the ratio widens a bit (38.4% females vs. 35.9% males). But I concede that's a relatively minor matter. I don't know for sure if in polygamous societies it's common for adult men to not have a wife...I wouldn't think so, just because when I hear interviews and so on with Iranians or other people from largely polygamous societies, the men are almost always married and have children, so I would think that so long as a man isn't absolutely poverty striken, he manages to acquire a wife somehow or other. But I must admit I can't find any data that says anything one way or another.
Ah, dig in all you want, because frankly I'm about to do the same thing
- I'm going to have to disagree with you. I agree that "women and children first" might sometimes indicate an anti-male bias, though I am pretty confident that you're reading more into it than is there in many (though perhaps not all) cases. But the principle behind it - the principle that the strong should protect the weak - is an important and beneficial one. It's the basis of many of humankind's most charitable, ethical and moral impulses and of our concept of basic fairness. Why are adults not supposed to have sex with children (however "child" is defined in a particular culture)? Because the strong are not supposed to prey on the vulnerable. Why are men not supposed to beat up their wives and why aren't adult children supposed to beat up their aged parents, even if the wives are terrible people or those aged parents are hateful old curmudgeons? Because the strong are supposed to protect the weak, not hurt them. Why do relatively affluent people support soup kitchens and food banks even if it isn't likely that they or anybody they know well will have to use one? Because those who have much should help those who don't have enough.
Why is a 12-year-old bully who beats up little kids told to "pick on somebody your own size"? Because the strong aren't supposed to prey on the weak.
I really think that "women and children first" is based on this rather than some idea that men are less valuable. Of course that's just my opinion. But I hope that even if you can't accept this thesis entirely, maybe you can see that it might be the case at least sometimes.
Well, that was a great discussion. I'd thought I'd just clarify a few aspects of my argument. Not to continue the debate as such- unless anyone wants to, of course - because we've pretty much both made our cases and happily agreed to disagree, but I thought I'd clarify where I was coming from.
Well, what I'm about to say is somewhat circular reasoning, seeing as it depends in part on acceptance of ideas you have already explained why you disagree with. As I say, I feel the need just to clarify where I was coming from, though, so forgive me to put forward ideas you've already given a counterargument to:
In regards to being of both more value and less value at once, I'd suggest it happens all the time, paradoxical as it sounds. Many if not most cultures have or had a preference for sons over daughters, yet also placed highly the idea that young men should fight and die to keep young women safe. Sons were valued over daughters in regards to inheritance, etc, yet it would be the sons sent to fight and the daughters kept safe. Indeed, as you say, warriors have been valued by most societies, but at the same time, the warrior's life is always less valued than those they are protecting/fighting for. Their role is valued, their purpose is, so, in that sense, so are they...but not really. The exact same is true of women, I'd say. Their wombs are valued, their ability to bear children are valued, so they're valued...but not really. And as you demonstrated, depending on the exact circumstances of the tribe they might decide they needed one group of people more than others and so relative values might change.
However, I don't think we can ever get over the fact that women are so much more valuable to the reproductive process (even if that is no longer an active motivation in a society's running). In the long run, it will always be more males sacrificed because they are simply in lesser demand. That certainly doesn't mean women are treated in a dignified manner- usually they're not, if they're seen primarily as "baby-making machines".
I wouldn't say it was being "sneaky", or to fool any one group alone. It's to "fool" everyone, to hide that which the society does not want to confront. I see it as a societal self-deception, one rooted in our earlier struggles for survival. Now, I certainly don't claim any expert knowledge. This is simply what I've put together, how I've come to understand the world and I make no claims to its Being Right (hell, I'm a student, I'm used to people who know better looking at my theories and saying "no. Sorry, but...no".
)
A boy or young man who is weak will not make a good hunter, fighter or, for that matter, breeder. Therefore, any form of weakness in males is taboo. However, it's obvious that at least some young men and boys are weak, physically, psychologically spiritually, however we define it. Toughening up our boys became essential; this is the basis of the old initiation rites (which were once at least in good part about enduring physical pain; if a young man couldn’t do that, he was useless. He couldn’t contribute as an adult male should and therefore was a drain on the tribe). Too many weak young males in your tribe was therefore always a problem, but when humanity began the practice of violently competing for limited resources by pre-emptively exterminating other tribes, it became equated with extinction. It was therefore vitally important that all men and teenage boys be strong; no society would dare allow weakness there. Victimization implies vulnerability, vulnerability implies weakness. Therefore victimization implies weakness. Because weakness among males, young ones in particular, equals extinction in the human cultural consciousness, social belief systems in regards to gender will always agree on this one, defining point; males are not victims.
Now, the real point, and I'm not sure I'm explaining it in any convincing way, but here goes: if women had been men’s equals in the popular imagination, the protection of the biologically more valuable women would have been equally necessary, but the men would feel their dignity under assault rather than boosted by their role. They would insist they were victimized by society’s expectations of their role putting themselves at risk for others. Again, victimization implies vulnerability, which in turn implies weakness. Weakness among adult males is taboo, due to the importance of their role as providers and protectors. If they’re weak, everyone is screwed. However, perceptions of women being inferior to men (and indeed, the reality of being kept legally inferior in most societies) helped keep the much-needed male=protector role and maintain the ideology of strength and endurance the males needed to perform this role. Men had to be tough in order to survive and perform their function within the tribe. Thus, a mind-set of superiority and self-assurance was necessary. They wouldn’t have that if they felt women were getting a better deal than they did; they needed the pride of looking after "inferior", helpless creatures (and as we know, perceptions of women in some societies or communities reach the stage where they claim women are incapable of doing, well, anything without men to oversee them.). Fortunately, our society has reached a point where we can all seek freedom from such strictly defined and nonsensical roles.
Elder men, who are of course usually the ones with the authority and the official power, were themselves raised in the system, so while it is indeed they who are "responsible" it's not them being deliberately hurtful (and this applies to their treatment of sons and daughters (and wives) alike). In World War I, for example, the younger men did indeed often feel distaste or anger for their father's generation and how it had treated them- "older men" became the enemy. Those older men were blind to what they were doing because they themselves were part of the system- only the shock of the unprecedented terrible conditions in that war shattered their son's illusions and allowed their "awakening".
I'm, of course, not saying it's some sort of vast conspiracy, what I would suggest is that human society, which developed originally in a manner dictated by basic instincts, arranged itself- half on instinct, half on something higher, in a manner that allowed its prosperity, and came to a self-understanding, self-representation and self-manipulation that allowed this society to function. Now, I know little about anthropology. If an anthropologist came along and shouted "Rubbish!" at this point there would be little I could say. I certainly don't know how this happened, and I certainly understand any skepticism because I don't know how to truly justify it myself , but I do believe humanity must have
Agreed, you are quite right, and I don't in any way dispute this point. I believe basic biological instinct has been overcome in most areas for the greater good of society, but the modes of thinking which those instincts motivated in the past haven't always been...
You're quite right. The "protective patriarchy" in which the husband places the wife so highly is indeed to a large extent limited to only certain societies. However, I would suggest young males in most societies are not fully "part of the community" because their role is as a defensive perimeter to the community. Again, you have already articulated your disagreement to many of the assumptions I'm making here, so once again this is only to clarify my thinking, not to offer anything new:
In Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”, he speaks of a “double oppression” for soldiers. They are forced to accept both subordination to superiors, and being ostracized from the community in general. Young males, adolescent boys and young men, are usually in this position (they are soldiers, unofficially if not always officially- in many “primitive” (and this is a troubling, uncomfortable word, I know) tribal societies, young men actually were ritually separated from the group as part of their “rite of passage” to manhood). The following is, I admit, a very simplified analysis, and there will always be exceptions:
Young men serve their community- consisting, I would argue, primarily of the women, children and elder males (who dominated it)- by working, fighting for them, etc. They also serve their fathers, whether the father is of working age or not. The male role is traditionally to climb the power hierarchy, but young males were lower than their elders. The males are in the power hierarchy, not the community. But they serve the community, as providers and protectors. Women, I would suggest, of course have the opposite traditionally: they are in the community, not in the power structure. But they served the power structure, through subordination to their husband’s authority and general domestic servitude. Young adult males and adolescent boys, however, usually were marginalized in two regards- women of all ages enjoyed the benefits of community and protection (usually, you yourself have quite rightly pointed out this is certainly not always the case) even as they served the power structure, but only older men enjoyed full benefits of the power hierarchy as they served the community. This isn't me trying to say "young men have it terrible, women don't" (believe me, I certainly wouldn't want a traditional woman's lot in life), but it is one of the reasons why I feel they require more attention than they tend to get.
Well, I don't claim any in-depth knowledge. I've read what some others have to say, but I cannot and certainly do not vouch for the accuracy of their analysis.
However, I will stick by my assertion that the "excess" of males, which makes them relatively disposable and expendable, is at the heart of much of many people's thinking on how we relate to young men. As you have demonstrated to me, though, certainly not everyone's.
Well, I think people shouldn't be praying on anyone, and should be beneficial to all. Strong and weak shouldn't enter into it. That said, I certainly understand where you're coming from..
Also, the problem with "the strong should protect the weak" is that people tend to make decisions before-hand as to which you should be. I would describe myself as "weak" and I have been more often condemned than protected by the "strong", because society simply has great difficulty accepting a healthy young adult male in a position of weakness. It's one of humanity's biggest taboos. However, I acknowledge that what I'm saying here points to flaws in society and in people, not in your argument.
Oh, of course. I'm well aware that the meanings people attach to social traditions differ widely. At the very least, you have clearly demonstrated that you personally don't see it in terms of men being less valuable. I'm glad I was able to hear your thoughts on this, they have given me much to think about.
- because we've pretty much both made our cases and happily agreed to disagree, but I thought I'd clarify where I was coming from. Well, what I'm about to say is somewhat circular reasoning, seeing as it depends in part on acceptance of ideas you have already explained why you disagree with.
As I say, I feel the need just to clarify where I was coming from, though, so forgive me to put forward ideas you've already given a counterargument to:In regards to being of both more value and less value at once, I'd suggest it happens all the time, paradoxical as it sounds. Many if not most cultures have or had a preference for sons over daughters, yet also placed highly the idea that young men should fight and die to keep young women safe. Sons were valued over daughters in regards to inheritance, etc, yet it would be the sons sent to fight and the daughters kept safe. Indeed, as you say, warriors have been valued by most societies, but at the same time, the warrior's life is always less valued than those they are protecting/fighting for. Their role is valued, their purpose is, so, in that sense, so are they...but not really. The exact same is true of women, I'd say. Their wombs are valued, their ability to bear children are valued, so they're valued...but not really. And as you demonstrated, depending on the exact circumstances of the tribe they might decide they needed one group of people more than others and so relative values might change.
However, I don't think we can ever get over the fact that women are so much more valuable to the reproductive process (even if that is no longer an active motivation in a society's running). In the long run, it will always be more males sacrificed because they are simply in lesser demand. That certainly doesn't mean women are treated in a dignified manner- usually they're not, if they're seen primarily as "baby-making machines".
I wouldn't say it was being "sneaky", or to fool any one group alone. It's to "fool" everyone, to hide that which the society does not want to confront. I see it as a societal self-deception, one rooted in our earlier struggles for survival. Now, I certainly don't claim any expert knowledge. This is simply what I've put together, how I've come to understand the world and I make no claims to its Being Right (hell, I'm a student, I'm used to people who know better looking at my theories and saying "no. Sorry, but...no".
)A boy or young man who is weak will not make a good hunter, fighter or, for that matter, breeder. Therefore, any form of weakness in males is taboo. However, it's obvious that at least some young men and boys are weak, physically, psychologically spiritually, however we define it. Toughening up our boys became essential; this is the basis of the old initiation rites (which were once at least in good part about enduring physical pain; if a young man couldn’t do that, he was useless. He couldn’t contribute as an adult male should and therefore was a drain on the tribe). Too many weak young males in your tribe was therefore always a problem, but when humanity began the practice of violently competing for limited resources by pre-emptively exterminating other tribes, it became equated with extinction. It was therefore vitally important that all men and teenage boys be strong; no society would dare allow weakness there. Victimization implies vulnerability, vulnerability implies weakness. Therefore victimization implies weakness. Because weakness among males, young ones in particular, equals extinction in the human cultural consciousness, social belief systems in regards to gender will always agree on this one, defining point; males are not victims.
Now, the real point, and I'm not sure I'm explaining it in any convincing way, but here goes: if women had been men’s equals in the popular imagination, the protection of the biologically more valuable women would have been equally necessary, but the men would feel their dignity under assault rather than boosted by their role. They would insist they were victimized by society’s expectations of their role putting themselves at risk for others. Again, victimization implies vulnerability, which in turn implies weakness. Weakness among adult males is taboo, due to the importance of their role as providers and protectors. If they’re weak, everyone is screwed. However, perceptions of women being inferior to men (and indeed, the reality of being kept legally inferior in most societies) helped keep the much-needed male=protector role and maintain the ideology of strength and endurance the males needed to perform this role. Men had to be tough in order to survive and perform their function within the tribe. Thus, a mind-set of superiority and self-assurance was necessary. They wouldn’t have that if they felt women were getting a better deal than they did; they needed the pride of looking after "inferior", helpless creatures (and as we know, perceptions of women in some societies or communities reach the stage where they claim women are incapable of doing, well, anything without men to oversee them.
). Fortunately, our society has reached a point where we can all seek freedom from such strictly defined and nonsensical roles. Elder men, who are of course usually the ones with the authority and the official power, were themselves raised in the system, so while it is indeed they who are "responsible" it's not them being deliberately hurtful (and this applies to their treatment of sons and daughters (and wives) alike). In World War I, for example, the younger men did indeed often feel distaste or anger for their father's generation and how it had treated them- "older men" became the enemy. Those older men were blind to what they were doing because they themselves were part of the system- only the shock of the unprecedented terrible conditions in that war shattered their son's illusions and allowed their "awakening".
I'm, of course, not saying it's some sort of vast conspiracy, what I would suggest is that human society, which developed originally in a manner dictated by basic instincts, arranged itself- half on instinct, half on something higher, in a manner that allowed its prosperity, and came to a self-understanding, self-representation and self-manipulation that allowed this society to function. Now, I know little about anthropology. If an anthropologist came along and shouted "Rubbish!" at this point there would be little I could say
. I certainly don't know how this happened, and I certainly understand any skepticism because I don't know how to truly justify it myself , but I do believe humanity must have Agreed, you are quite right, and I don't in any way dispute this point. I believe basic biological instinct has been overcome in most areas for the greater good of society, but the modes of thinking which those instincts motivated in the past haven't always been...
You're quite right. The "protective patriarchy" in which the husband places the wife so highly is indeed to a large extent limited to only certain societies. However, I would suggest young males in most societies are not fully "part of the community" because their role is as a defensive perimeter to the community. Again, you have already articulated your disagreement to many of the assumptions I'm making here, so once again this is only to clarify my thinking, not to offer anything new
: In Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”, he speaks of a “double oppression” for soldiers. They are forced to accept both subordination to superiors, and being ostracized from the community in general. Young males, adolescent boys and young men, are usually in this position (they are soldiers, unofficially if not always officially- in many “primitive” (and this is a troubling, uncomfortable word, I know) tribal societies, young men actually were ritually separated from the group as part of their “rite of passage” to manhood). The following is, I admit, a very simplified analysis, and there will always be exceptions:
Young men serve their community- consisting, I would argue, primarily of the women, children and elder males (who dominated it)- by working, fighting for them, etc. They also serve their fathers, whether the father is of working age or not. The male role is traditionally to climb the power hierarchy, but young males were lower than their elders. The males are in the power hierarchy, not the community. But they serve the community, as providers and protectors. Women, I would suggest, of course have the opposite traditionally: they are in the community, not in the power structure. But they served the power structure, through subordination to their husband’s authority and general domestic servitude. Young adult males and adolescent boys, however, usually were marginalized in two regards- women of all ages enjoyed the benefits of community and protection (usually, you yourself have quite rightly pointed out this is certainly not always the case) even as they served the power structure, but only older men enjoyed full benefits of the power hierarchy as they served the community. This isn't me trying to say "young men have it terrible, women don't" (believe me, I certainly wouldn't want a traditional woman's lot in life), but it is one of the reasons why I feel they require more attention than they tend to get.
Well, I don't claim any in-depth knowledge. I've read what some others have to say, but I cannot and certainly do not vouch for the accuracy of their analysis.
However, I will stick by my assertion that the "excess" of males, which makes them relatively disposable and expendable, is at the heart of much of many people's thinking on how we relate to young men. As you have demonstrated to me, though, certainly not everyone's.
Ah, dig in all you want, because frankly I'm about to do the same thing
But the principle behind it - the principle that the strong should protect the weak - is an important and beneficial one. It's the basis of many of humankind's most charitable, ethical and moral impulses and of our concept of basic fairness. Why are adults not supposed to have sex with children (however "child" is defined in a particular culture)? Because the strong are not supposed to prey on the vulnerable. Why are men not supposed to beat up their wives and why aren't adult children supposed to beat up their aged parents, even if the wives are terrible people or those aged parents are hateful old curmudgeons? Because the strong are supposed to protect the weak, not hurt them. Why do relatively affluent people support soup kitchens and food banks even if it isn't likely that they or anybody they know well will have to use one? Because those who have much should help those who don't have enough.
Why is a 12-year-old bully who beats up little kids told to "pick on somebody your own size"? Because the strong aren't supposed to prey on the weak.
Well, I think people shouldn't be praying on anyone, and should be beneficial to all. Strong and weak shouldn't enter into it. That said, I certainly understand where you're coming from.
.Also, the problem with "the strong should protect the weak" is that people tend to make decisions before-hand as to which you should be. I would describe myself as "weak" and I have been more often condemned than protected by the "strong", because society simply has great difficulty accepting a healthy young adult male in a position of weakness. It's one of humanity's biggest taboos. However, I acknowledge that what I'm saying here points to flaws in society and in people, not in your argument.
Oh, of course. I'm well aware that the meanings people attach to social traditions differ widely. At the very least, you have clearly demonstrated that you personally don't see it in terms of men being less valuable. I'm glad I was able to hear your thoughts on this, they have given me much to think about.
?oo, cake.
Similar threads
