This bit isn't really true though. Women are very often the ones that look after their partners. Particularly in modern society. It used to be that men went to work and earn a living whilst the women tended to the house and children, but now many women work full time as well as still tending to the house and children. It's very common for both the man and woman to earn money, but still very common for the woman to do the majority of the cleaning, cooking, ironing and child rearing. There's a stereotype that's all too common with the men being 'useless', or at least not as good when it comes to such things, and it works very much in the favour of the man.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
This bit isn't really true though. Women are very often the ones that look after their partners. Particularly in modern society. It used to be that men went to work and earn a living whilst the women tended to the house and children, but now many women work full time as well as still tending to the house and children. It's very common for both the man and woman to earn money, but still very common for the woman to do the majority of the cleaning, cooking, ironing and child rearing. There's a stereotype that's all too common with the men being 'useless', or at least not as good when it comes to such things, and it works very much in the favour of the man.
Are there any historical civilisations where the men have been the subservient gender?
By the law of averages, probably, but none spring to mind. I can currently only think of a Red Dwarf episode which doesn't help the discussion a lot.
There have been matriarchal tribes, if they count.
I am not sure. Describe them?
Edit: found details on Wiki, requires more reading tomorrow.
There's definitely one in China but I can't remember the name of it.
EDIT: Mosou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
EDIT: Mosou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
I think he was saying that most women do have a tendency to want to be looked after in a relationship. Not always financially (although this is almost always the case), but more generally. I don't care if you're trying to whoo the most strident feminist, if you don't know how to take the lead in certain circumstances, you're not going to get anywhere. Women will never be attracted to men who aren't in at least somewhat a position of power (with regards to social status or means to earn an income...or at least dominant in some way), whereas most men will never have a problem being attracted to a woman who is useless in that sense. It's clear that a great deal of this is biological.
I have a friend who once joined a feminist society at university to try and get in with this girl he had met at some leftist group. It turned out she was getting fecked by this dickhead from the rugby team who we both knew
. He is the most sexist, arrogant 'lad' you could ever come across. I think that says it all. The idea that things are changing, and that female equality in the employment market has left gender roles dead in the water is a load of rubbish. If anything, the role of the man as a dominant figure is even more important than it used to be, because women today can afford to stay single instead of settling for useless/weak men.
It's not so much about a woman seeing herself as the lesser partner, but obviously there are evolutionary reasons for why seeking a partner who protective and able to provide is more important for females than for males. Our attraction didn't just spring up through chance, it evolved for reasons of survival. Given that men and women are different physically and that our roles in passing on our genes are different, the idea that what a man finds attractive in a partner is exactly the same as what a woman finds attractive doesn't make any sense.
Still?
So what about those tribes then in which the women went out to hunt for food and such?
That doesn't sound right, people have a wide variety of sexual preferences and what might appeal to one man might not appeal to another. What might appeal to one woman might not appeal to another. And the perfect ideal of what a man or woman should be seems to be culturally dictated, more than anything else.
I don't know much about those tribal societies, but from what I've read over the past couple of minutes, the idea is disputed. But even if they have existed, there's no reason why that challenges anything in my post. Our innate biology just influences behaviour, there's no reason why it has to produce the same results in all circumstances. External factors (such as physical environment or social norms play a part).
Of course, culture hugely influences human behaviour. But there is still a biological foundation - and as I have said above, this biological foundation doesn't produce the same results for everyone. It does provide tendencies, though, and these tendencies are obvious.
It is well observed in the world of chimps and other apes that there is a strong uniformity in behaviour from community to community, distinct from culture and social norms. Especially when sexual behaviour is concerned. A female chimp introduced into a chimp community from captivity will show no sexual interest in most of the males, and will gravitate towards the dominate male. I imagine if a similar experiment could be conducted with female humans being introduced into human society for the first time as adults, there would also be strong tendencies in sexual attraction.
A biological sexual preference by females for dominant men is a logical result of the evolutionary process, whether feminism or any other social science wants to admit it or not.
A biological sexual preference by females for dominant men is a logical result of the evolutionary process, whether feminism or any other social science wants to admit it or not.
The human equivalent of the dominant male (and female) is confidence IMO. I'm basing this on nothing but personal experience though.
Bonobos (Our closest relatives along with chimps) have sex with any other bonobo even if they're related, I'm not sure how much you can compare what animals do, even if they're closely related to us, and apply it to humans as well.
And in any case:
So male dominance plays no role in sexual attraction in their society.
I would agree. But it's also about how others respond to you. Men who are treated as pushovers will never be able to attract women, from my experience. Logically it would make sense for women to have evolved a preference for men who can establish dominance in a particular community.
It was a more a point about biology (distinct from culture and social norms) being largely responsible for sexual behaviour/attraction.
I'm sure a similar point could be made about bonobos. If you took multiple bonobos at birth and created a new bonobo community in captivity, would this community display similar sexual behaviour to other bonobo communities? I would say so. This would strongly suggest biology is the biggest factor in attraction.
Really, that's pretty lame, to not talk about something you find makes no sense but pretty much dominates your society and global politics?
There was no multi denominational school which was a viable option and had to baptize my children before a state! run school would accept them. I didn't seek out that interaction with 'God'.
Atheists might bore you but really they are the ones whose beliefs don't effect others.
I find both sides to be quite odious. Militant atheists tend to be just as annoying as religious nutters.
I hate whatever Bill Maher is.
The only time I feel annoyance at strident atheist groups is when they do things like demand local authorities remove nativity scenes from public display. But that seems to be more an American thing.
In what way do 'militant' atheists annoy you?
An atheist Jew from a Catholic upbringing?
That'll do.
"Militant atheism", another propaganda term I loathe. And it annoys me even more that people allow themselves to be duped by it.
I'd say you're the perfect example of the term. A young, idealistic, hipster who fancies himself an expert because he's watched a few Harris/Dawkins YoutTube clips. Try showing a bit more humility and you might get somewhere in these debates.
1 out of 3, not bad. And if I'm the perfect example of the term, you've just proved my point.
Where have I not shown humility?
I think that atheists are justified in being smug. We're right, after all.
Yeah but being right doesn't mean we have to be dicks about it.
No, but it's so much more fun though.
Of course, there are idiots attached to most ideas. For me the key is in how you practice your life, and it's probably geographic, but you can pretty much ignore atheists, not so with religion in some states.
You're right in saying that atheists needn't be outright dick heads when discussing their atheism/religion, but a certain smugness is inevitable when you hold a highly contentious belief that is practically bullet proof from rational argument. We have the undeniable intellectual high ground AND we're in the minority in the general population. It's kind of hard not to be smug.
I'm an athiest who happens to think religion is nonsense. But I don't obsess about it or waste my time getting into long arguments with the religious trying to convince them they're wrong, because that would put me in good stead with hardcore over-zealous religious types who are sure they are right and I am wrong.
I'm convinced that human beings, particularly in the internet/social media age where more people have access to information, are gradually deprogramming from religious mysticism and examining ideas more critically, including existencial ones that serve as the basis of many religious doctrines. As more and more information becomes available through technology, particularly in the developing world, I can easily see a world that is dominated by critical thought & reason at the expense of religion within the next 50 years.
Amen.
Theism has very little evidence and the simple solution is to just dismiss it all as nonsense, so I'm not sure you should be smug considering it's very easy to take the atheist positon. Constantly pointing out primitive and obvious arguments to theists is nothing to be smug about IMO, it's certainly not clever.
That's more to do with the individual than what they believe on theism?
I don't think that's a biological thing itself, I think it's more related to the urge for children and to protect them. In times past a strong bloke that would be a reliable provider would've been seen as beneficial to that, but these days it's not so applicable.
I think it's always important to be precise with the words you use, which I don't think is the case here. I'd like to know what's 'militant' about atheists.
mil·i·tant
/ˈmilətənt/Adjective
Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause:
I think that applies to quite a lot of them.
Raoul has been spot on in this thread.
He hasn't, militant atheism is just a new buzz word, it's completely fatuous. A few atheists might phrase things a bit strongly but to suggest it's aggressive or combative, do me a favour.
'All religion is bollocks' - in no way aggressive or combative.