. The point is that the cause of the injustice offers no support for the continuation of the injustice. — Hanover

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

What are your thoughts on the quality of human life and how it has changed over the centuries? — T Clark

They changed. And these (big) changes aren't very common. — Michael

Prepare for war, and peace will take care of itself. — Agustino

We've already succeeded. We succeeded thousands of years ago. We don't live in an anarchy. We have laws and a government. — Michael

So we had 9 years of war over a span of 113 years, and you want to say that society is fundamentally an anarchy? Seems to me that anarchies (using the term loosely here, as society wasn't an anarchy during the wars) are the irregular, temporary occurrences. — Michael

And at any moment we could all have heart attacks and die. But the odds are so unlikely as for it to be irrelevant. — Michael

It has always struck me that the amazing thing about human society, with billions of us jammed together, is how little violence there is. — T Clark

What do you mean by saying that we're fundamentally an anarchy? Do you mean that if we take away all the temporary social constructs like laws and the government then we'd be an anarchy? — Michael

Yes, I meant to say Lucretius. — mcdoodle

So if the biological factor isn't sufficient, then what else is required, and is it arbitrary? If there's some arbitrary non-biological factor then Hanover's point stands. — Michael

If our current temporary social construct isn't an anarchy (which it isn't) then what I'm saying is right. — Michael

Being a good leader doesn't require any of this. Most governance these days isn't limited to waging war or dominating other nations in other ways. — Michael

Society is fundamentally an anarchy, and you'd be deceiving yourself if you thought anything else was anything more than temporary social constructs, regardless of how virtuous or right they happen to be. That's why brute force has ultimately decided the course of things historically. — Agustino

Yes, I beg his pardon. — mcdoodle

So which is it? Should the leader be the one most suited to the job or should the leader be the one with the biggest muscles and the biggest stick? — Michael

And then, you responded to my response by quoting this: — Michael

you've explained how men are able to force women into submission, you haven't explained why they did so. — Michael

So something other than the biological differences between men and women is required to explain any social inequalities. — Michael

Having the physical strength to force others to obey you is not the same thing as being a competent leader. — Michael

And being a woman is a biological fact (contra some modern theorists who say it's not), so one could say that the biological fact of being a woman determines whether one is going to be subjugated as a woman, but this obviously wouldn't be saying much. — jamalrob

The Judeo-Christian tradition actually blames the first woman for the existence of evil. — Mongrel

All right, I guess we can kind of agree on all that. Even so, it's obvious that you wanted to emphasize the biology, as if doing so somehow went against Hanover's point. It doesn't, which is why I made my contribution, to point out something you appeared to be missing. — jamalrob

Ah, I see. So that's what you mean by saying that there are biological reasons for social inequality. Men were/are strong enough to force women into submission. — Michael

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

But that doesn't immediately follow. There's a missing step between the division of labour and the subsequent dominance. — Michael

that the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women. — jamalrob

the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women in a social environment in which women are bound to the household, subservient to men, unable to pick and choose between social roles, where childcare is unavailable, and so on. — jamalrob

You wanted to say that biology is primary here, but if what I've said so far is true, it is the social environment that is crucial. — jamalrob

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe I'm more of an Epicurean, and the place to start that journey is an edition of Sextus Empiricus. — mcdoodle

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

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'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

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

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

See - I increased the scope of my question, since I've gotten into so much trouble with my unwarranted assumptions today. I don't want Augustino to call me names again. — T Clark

Part of what I have been taught is to eliminate the threat, and avoid situations where you may be in danger if at all possible. So the same fight should not be repeated, and in the street, it is very rare to have a fight repeat itself exactly. — Lone Wolf

In my experience, women are not nicer or gentler than men. That's not an intended as an insult. — T Clark

but yes, I think I stand a chance more so than one without any training at all — Lone Wolf

At the least, he will wish he would have picked on a different person. :P — Lone Wolf

And the creepy just keeps on coming. — T Clark

Here is another quote from earlier in this thread: — T Clark

many assume that because of my smaller being that I am incapable of doing activities such as combat fighting and flying an aircraft. — Lone Wolf

My hat is off to you! — Thinker