I went back and looked carefully at the OP and I just don't find anything about gay men there — Bitter Crank

I applied the opening poster's logic (detailed in subsequent posts) to the relationship between gay men and straight men.

I'm not exactly sure how the threat of brutality is supposed to show up in the demeanor of women or gay men. Maybe he'll explain that.

Hopefully not.

OK.

It's been my experience that gay men are a lot like straight men (and gay women are a lot like straight women). Rage is rage. Brutal is brutal, it doesn't make all that much difference what the sexual orientation is. A lot of people (gay straight male female) lack the skill to engage in fighting, so rage isn't going to get expressed as artfully as it is in Hollywood movies.

I'm not suggesting the "we are all really just the same, except who we go to bed with" cliche. Gay and straight are different in a number of significant ways.

It is important to not stereotype people based on gender. I might as well confess that I am girl, not a guy. I consider myself to be independent, and not very submissive to anyone who has not been proven trustworthy and capable. I am not afraid to challenge someone's theory. I do not think all men are stupid or inferior, but there are certainly some. — Lone Wolf

Apologies if you've already answered this, but how do you define male capability and what makes a guy capable in your eyes?

In my own opinion I think that being honest, loving, not a manipulative, abusive psychopath, etc. refer back to a man's, and woman's, trustworthiness. As in, you trust them to be honest, loving, and so on. I'm just curious, because being, let's say virtuous, sounds like a pretty damn good prerequisite for a capable [male] friend or partner.

Rage is rage. Brutal is brutal, it doesn't make all that much difference what the sexual orientation is. — Bitter Crank

It's called gay bashing. Does it make gay men submissive?

Is the other partner in a relationship automatically dominated if the other is more intelligent?

Does gay bashing make gay men submissive? No, I don't think so. It might make us more cautious. You know, most gay men do not get beat up by straights, at least in my experience in the US, since 1970.

Yes -- some gay men get beaten up by straight men because they are are gay, and news of these beatings is as close to a fist in the face and kick in the ribs as most gay men get.

The point is it's all a status play. In these arguments, people are using images of the "nature of" a particular group to, to ground a system of status hierarchy and excuse its abuses.

In these sort of arguments, the stereotypes, the so called "explanations" of men and women, there is no conception of the people involved. It's all a seperate image which supposely justifies who someone gets and where they belong in a social hierarchy.

Does gay bashing make gay men submissive? No, I don't think so. — Bitter Crank

So you're saying the OP's logic is flawed. Cool.

Violence against a comrade may well stiffen the backbone.

Too many pop tarts may well fatten the gut.

You are quoting out of context. — Agustino

I went back and checked. That quote gives an accurate representation of the opinion you were expressing in the post.

Okay, I agree with all that, but my point really is that physical size plays an important role in fighting, a role which is often underestimated by people who train in martial arts but have little experience of actual fighting beyond sparring under fixed and set rules, with protective gear, etc. — Agustino

I'm sure Lone Wolf could handle the situation. She'd just call in an air strike and blow the guy's ass off. Stupid idea, serious point. I'm a man and I'm bigger than the thug in question. There's is no doubt that the 200 pound guy could beat me up more easily than he could beat up Lone Wolf. Does that mean I should be submissive? That's why we have guns, mace, police, and combat aircraft.

I went back and checked. That quote gives an accurate representation of the opinion you were expressing in the post. — T Clark

I recommend you check again, preferably more intelligently this time.

I'm sure Lone Wolf could handle the situation. She'd just call in an air strike and blow the guy's ass off. — T Clark

Well she could certainly handle the situation better and more intelligently than you, given the evidence you have provided so far in this discussion...

Does that mean I should be submissive? That's why we have guns, mace, police, and combat aircraft. — T Clark

Well, unless you carry a gun, mace, the police or fighter jets after you wherever you go, then there may be situations when you should be submissive, yes.

Is the other partner in a relationship automatically dominated if the other is more intelligent? — Heister Eggcart

No.

I'm just curious, because being, let's say virtuous, sounds like a pretty damn good prerequisite for a capable [male] friend or partner. — Heister Eggcart

I agree :D

I recommend you check again, preferably more intelligently this time. — Agustino

Oh, Agustino, you are so mean to me.

Well she could certainly handle the situation better and more intelligently than you, given the evidence you have provided so far in this discussion... — Agustino

Oh, Agustino, you're such a silly person. Is my response an ad hominem argument?

It is a common rhetorical ploy on this site to state that one's position is obvious or self-evident. That is almost never true. — T Clark

Where I said "Let me state the obvious," I guess I should have said, "Let me state what ought be obvious. "

Let's state the obvious. Women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles due to the power structure in place. Barriers have been reduced, but not eliminated. Some women have transcended those traditional roles through special effort, others have fully consented to embracing those traditional roles, and others still have tried but failed to overcome the limitations imposed by their social situation. That is to say that whatever successes elude women (other than those requiring brute muscle), is the result of environment, not some inherent leadership, intellectual, or emotional deficiency existing specially in women.

Are we really having this discussion? — Hanover

IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation.

The truth is there are biological reasons for this. Pregnancy, hormonal issues, etc. were all matters which made women more vulnerable physically speaking than men, at least at certain points in their lives. This, combined with lower tendencies towards aggressiveness and competition ensured that women would not often hold leadership positions - though there are exceptions, for example Cleopatra, Mishil of Silla, Queen Seon Deok, Joan d'Arc, etc.

Ultimately we live in a world where, apart from virtue (which is rare), brute strength rules. Remember this because it is important. People are often mistaken about this point, and think economics rules, or money rules, etc. but that's all false. Ultimately, it's the military that rules. When the shit really hits the fan, it's the military that steps in and settles the situation, no one else.

I think there are no biological differences between men and women in terms of intelligence, but there are differences - generally speaking - in key attributes - compassion, aggressiveness, emotional resilience (women generally show a better capacity than men), conflict orientation, physical strength etc. These can be traced back to biological causes, and they exist and will continue to exist regardless of what we do (or what the leftist agenda is). And granted this fact, men and women simply have different priorities and considerations in life, which can however quite often be mutually reinforcing. Of course it depends again from person to person, because you can have men who are very feminine, and women who are very masculine, physically strong, etc.

The best we can do is what we're doing now. Use the law to protect women over those things where they can be abused because they are vulnerable - this means protect them against sexual abuse, physical violence, provide equal access to education and learning, provide equal access to political expression and manifestation, etc.. Much like we offer protection to children, who are exposed to a lot of vulnerabilities because of their lack of knowledge, physical size, etc. But there's not much more than that that we can do. There's some bullshit affirmative action, and other leftist ideology going around where, for example, a female professor is hired over a male professor just because she's a female - that's absolutely stupid, and in my view should stop. People should get hired for something based on their competency to do the job, not based on their sex.

IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation.

The truth is there are biological reasons for this. — Agustino

The point is that it's the social environment that determines whether the biological facts--of pregancy and giving birth--lead to such relegation. Nowhere in your post do you show that it's the other way around.

The point is that it's the social environment that determines whether the biological facts--of pregancy and giving birth--lead to such relegation. Nowhere in your post do you show that it's the other way around. — jamalrob

:s

The best we can do is what we're doing now. Use the law to protect women over those things where they can be abused because they are vulnerable - this means protect them against sexual abuse, physical violence, provide equal access to education and learning, provide equal access to political expression and manifestation, etc.. Much like we offer protection to children, who are exposed to a lot of vulnerabilities because of their lack of knowledge, physical size, etc. But there's not much more than that that we can do. There's some bullshit affirmative action, and other leftist ideology going around where, for example, a female professor is hired over a male professor just because she's a female - that's absolutely stupid, and in my view should stop. People should get hired for something based on their competency to do the job, not based on their sex. — Agustino

I don't see the relevance. Just more opinionating.

I don't see the relevance. Just more opinionating. — jamalrob

Well that's mutual, I certainly don't see the relevance of your post. As if I suggested somehow that biological facts should necessarily determine our social environment.

Well, that's precisely what you did (setting aside your sneaky "necessarily"). You explained social facts with an appeal to biological facts. You strongly implied that you think the fact that "women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles" is down to biology.

Well, that's precisely what you did (setting aside your sneaky "necessarily"). You explained social facts with an appeal to biological facts. You strongly implied that you think the fact that "women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles" is down to biology. — jamalrob

Look are you purposefully being disingenious? Review what I said.

Let's do it together.

IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation.

The truth is there are biological reasons for this. — Agustino

The question was if it was an arbitrary thing that women were relegated to submissive roles in those situations that Hanover mentioned. And the answer is, no it absolutely wasn't. This has ZERO to do with whether biological facts should (necessarily) determine our social environment.

I don't see what your problem is here, and I don't know what your emphasis on "should" is about, as I didn't accuse you of saying that biology should or must or necessarily determine social facts. You said...

The truth is there are biological reasons for this. — Agustino

And my only point, building on Hanover's original post, was that it is the social environment that determines how the biological facts of pregnancy etc., happen to affect women.

as I didn't accuse you of saying that biology should or must or necessarily determine social facts. You said... — jamalrob

QUESTION: Can biology determine social facts? Answer with yes or no please.

IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation. — Agustino

Well, according to this:

The major theory of the origin of patriarchy men dominating society points to social consequences of human reproduction. In early human history, life was short therefore to balance the high death rate and maintain the population, women had to give birth to many children.

Consequently, around the world women assumed tasks that were associated with the home and child care, while men took over the hunting of large animals and other tasks that required both greater speed and longer absences from the base camp.

As a result, men became dominant. It was the men who left camp to hunt animals, who made contact with other tribes, who traded with these groups, and who quarreled and waged war with them. It was they who accumulated possessions in trade and gained prestige by returning to the camp triumphantly, leading captured prisoners or bringing large animals they had killed to feed the tribe.

In contrast, little prestige was given to the routine, taken-for- granted activities of women who were not perceived as risking their lives for the group. Eventually, men took over society. Their sources of power were their weapons, items of trade, and knowledge gained from contact with other groups. Women became second- class citizens, subject to men's decisions.

Male dominance may be the result of some entirely different cause. For example, anthropologist Marvin Harris (1977) proposed that because most men are stronger than most women and survival in tribal groups required hand-to-hand combat, men became the warriors, and women became the reward that enticed men to risk their lives in battle.

Frederick Engels proposed that patriarchy came with the development of private property. He could not explain why private property should have produced male dominance, however. Gerda Lerner (1986) suggests that patriarchy may even have had different origins in different places.

Whatever its origins, a circular system of thought evolved. Men came to think of themselves as inherently superior based on the evidence that they dominated society. Even today, patriarchy is always accompanied by cultural supports designed to justify male dominance such as designating certain activities as "not appropriate" for women.

As tribal societies developed into larger groups, men, who enjoyed their power and privileges, maintained their dominance. Long after hunting and hand-to-hand combat ceased to be routine, and even after large numbers of children were no longer needed to maintain the population, men held on to their power. Male dominance in contemporary societies, then, is a continuation of a millennia-old pattern whose origin is lost in history.

A simple division of labour spiralled out of control.

The major theory of the origin of patriarchy men dominating society points to social consequences of human reproduction. In early human history, life was short therefore to balance the high death rate and maintain the population, women had to give birth to many children.

Consequently, around the world women assumed tasks that were associated with the home and child care, while men took over the hunting of large animals and other tasks that required both greater speed and longer absences from the base camp.

As a result, men became dominant. It was the men who left camp to hunt animals, who made contact with other tribes, who traded with these groups, and who quarreled and waged war with them. It was they who accumulated possessions in trade and gained prestige by returning to the camp triumphantly, leading captured prisoners or bringing large animals they had killed to feed the tribe.

In contrast, little prestige was given to the routine, taken-for- granted activities of women who were not perceived as risking their lives for the group. Eventually, men took over society. Their sources of power were their weapons, items of trade, and knowledge gained from contact with other groups. Women became second- class citizens, subject to men's decisions.

Male dominance may be the result of some entirely different cause. For example, anthropologist Marvin Harris (1977) proposed that because most men are stronger than most women and survival in tribal groups required hand-to-hand combat, men became the warriors, and women became the reward that enticed men to risk their lives in battle.

Good, thanks for proving me potentially right. Tell that to jamalrob, who apparently can't fathom that biological facts can determine social facts.

Good, thanks for proving me potentially right. Tell that to jamalrob, who apparently can't fathom that biological facts can determine social facts. — Agustino

The biological facts only determined that men became fighters and women became childrearers. Why that lead to men having social dominance is a different matter.

The biological facts only determined that men became fighters and women became childrearers. Why that lead to men having social dominance is a different matter. — Michael

As a result, men became dominant. It was the men who left camp to hunt animals, who made contact with other tribes, who traded with these groups, and who quarreled and waged war with them.