Can Women Lead Men?

[pterodactyl]

I've not participated in this thread because Belle, september and others have articulated what I was thinking so much more clearly and adeptly, but I wanted to chime in to say that the points made by Mr. Scientist are excellent.

Thanks for your post.

Amber

[Mr Scientist]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

By the way, can explain to me why it's OK that women outnumber men in some universities 1/3?

The answer is no. No you cannot.

I'm not saying this isn't something that has to be addressed, but I find it a bit strange that often when there are fewer women in a certain field the argument is made that they are less capable or intelligent in that area and it proves they can't achieve certain things, rather than saying something needs to be done to encourage them at younger ages to get into those fields.

However, when the "evidence" points to women excelling and achieving better results than men academically, suddenly it can't possibly be because they are intelligent and capable, but rather there is a problem with the social conditioning discouraging men from achieving their fullest potential.

So when women aren't doing well in a certain area and men are excelling it always comes down to biological realities and anyone making a claim that it may have something to do with role models and/or social conditioning is usually dismissed, while when men don't demonstrate a particular aptitude for something it's not biology but society's fault?

The message I get from that is the following: It’s acceptable when men are better at something and women shouldn't get so upset about it, while the implication that women may excel in certain areas (outside of nurturing and child-rearing of course) is a cause for concern?

Generally, the school system needs to be reformed for everyone. I'm not even sure current testing methods accurately reflect true intelligence. We still have a lot to learn about how the brain functions as well, so I find it almost silly to try and compare levels of intelligence.

[Mr Scientist]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

I've not participated in this thread because Belle, september and others have articulated what I was thinking so much more clearly and adeptly, but I wanted to chime in to say that the points made by Mr. Scientist are excellent.

Thanks for your post.

Amber

I found Belle and September's insights into the topic to be astute as well. This thread has become an interesting discussion on the topic.

[Angela]

Mr Scientist, I just can't get enough of you.

[dali]

When women take the initiative and lead , men point the finger and blame. A famous chap named Adam being the earliest example, and not a lot has changed since then. Women are as capable in leadership as men are but not everyone is a leader. Most folks prefer to follow. I know some astounding young men who were brought up by their mothers while their fathers went off and pursued interests other than their sons. I also know of a few girls brought up by their fathers who are not very remarkable. They have learned to run after the menfolk and act like good servants.Now that is only my very limited experience but it shows that while some are good leaders others are not. There must be men out there who bring up their daughters very well too.There is a shift happening and while it does a lot of men are finding it difficult to identify thus the fall into oblivion for a lot of them as you have seen. While thats the case women are the ones who will lead-somebody must!! While men lose their identity the long endured patriarchal stranglehold is loosening. Some men cant handle it, they would rather live in denial as you so vividly point out, but that will pass. Men are made of sterner stuff and will wake up one day and follow good leaders of both genders I hope.Until then your observations will be commonfold.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Hey, Mr Scientist. Glad you popped back in. You don't seem to post much but when you do, woweee. I really enjoy your posts! You've very clearly made some points I was having trouble articulating myself.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Thanks for your response, Neblasian.

Originally Posted by Neblasian

I think that single mothers do their very best in their capacity to raise their sons. It will be very wrong to blame men's fallout to them.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Neblasian

I think some women do in fact have to the capability of leading men. However, for leadership people must be willing to follow. Whether it is biological or social conditioning, I do not know, men follow men regardless. If they do not find good male role models in society, they will follow the drug dealers on the street. Remember drug dealers are role models too. For me, I think males look for other men to lead them into battle and women to nurse the wombs. One role is not necessary more important than the other.

I agree that many men probably do think that way. I just wonder if it's so bad to change that way of thinking to include women as respected leaders among men rather than just nurses.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by september

Merc, much of your argument is inductive: I've had experiences x and y, and so I conclude z (women should not lead men/Belle is mischaracterizing the family structure).

Day 3 that I've started to answer your post. I'll try to get through it this time.

What of Belle's argument is different from mine? She is going off her experience as a woman, a manager, a horse breeder. She has had x and y experiences and concluded with z. So, why are you picking on me?

I do appreciate your point, however, kidding aside.

Second, I have not said that women cannot lead men or should not lead men. What I am saying is that men should not be defined by women any more than women should be defined by men. How about we try self-definition? IMO, that is an essential quality of leadership in the first place.

Belle is not describing a matriarchy. She offers cooperative terms to describe a society where men and women bring their strengths to the table to meet a common goal (raising great children), but I don't see how that necessitates that the whole of society be structured in the same way. If Belle wants to work a job where there is less competition and more cooperation, perhaps she is expressing a preference for cooperation. But she is not insisting that everyone's jobs be based on cooperation. Hell, my prospective field thrives on competition, and that's a perk for me -- that motivates me to keep pushing myself for better results, more coherent life structure, etc. I want to be among the best.

I'm glad to hear your not a philosophy major. Belle started out defining what men are, what men should be and then how we should all just get along and cooperate. What would a matriarchy look like without these basic axioms behind it?

Rather, when Belle says that women are the core of society, I take it that she is saying that the family structure is the core of society, and women are the core of the family because raising a child naturally seems to produce the best results by using cooperative methods. Children are often most emotionally broken when they're pushed to compete in venues in which they don't want to compete, by domineering parents of both sexes. However, a cooperative child-raising atmosphere can show the child the best elements in both their parents and encourage them to engage in critical, independent judgment of the elements they are exposed to in order to develop themselves better. That is, the child can learn in which venues they want to compete and in which venues they want to cooperate.

I think she is saying that men are an accessory in the deal, one that we could basically do without (unless they are pretty to look at).

When parents have a baby, the mother will hold the child close to keep him/her safe. The father will throw the baby up in the air to make him/her laugh. Mothers will nurture a child and fathers teach them to fend for themselves. When there is no father, children get lots of nurturing and no fending for themselves. As a result, we have men that are quite needy and play lots of video games and we have women who are quite frustrated and have Phd's.

How about your experiences? Have you met a needy guys in your lifetime? How about in comparison to strong, responsible women?

This is the problem I have with inductive arguments -- Say there are one million marbles in a jar. Half are orange and half are purple. Say even 2/3rds of them are orange, and 1/3rd are purple. You pick out 100. The vast majority of them are orange. But there are SO many marbles in the jar (people and experiences in the world) that your marble-picking experience does not invalidate the presence of many purple marbles in the jar.

I'm not saying that my experiences are absolute. I don't automatically invalidate other people's experience either. In a way, we are sharing marbles. Belle has a bunch of orange and I have a bunch of purple. We draw the circle and play the game and now we have a new set of marbles to play with.

You're making arguments based on your past experiences. But that just shows a propensity for self-reflection. To understand other people's points and win them over to your side, past experience isn't going to cut it. Everyone has a past experience, and theirs can easily match yours in cohering with their argument just as well as your past coheres with yours. You need arguments not dependent upon your personal experience to better convince me. Not all inductive arguments are bad. But they should cull from a wider sample, and provide many more trait-matching results than yours.

When I have more time, I'll provide you with the data. Yes, this is based on my experience. Some of what we are talking about has caused me some major pain in my lifetime, which means I went looking for solutions. What I discovered was there are many guys out there who have had very similar experiences. Like I said, I'll get back to this.

This doesn't provide that the military model is masculine! As Mary Wollstonecraft perceptively points out in A Vindication Of The Rights Of Woman, the military beats down the common soldier to be dependent, submissive, and obedient. There are, as a result, many more submissive men in the military than there are dominant men. You'd probably say the men are just assuming the feminine position. In parallel, societal conceptions of masculinity and femininity in the 1700s provided that the husband keep the wife submissive to the husband, and the woman submissive to the man. And submission in this case is also "feminine". But it comes at the same level of "naturalness" in both the military man and the woman -- resistance, shame, brokenness. Then falling in line. But in the man it is "discipline", while in the woman it is "feminine submission".

The military structure is hierarchal as opposed to communal. So, yes, it is masculine. Take for example the reasons why more women do yoga and more men do martial arts. Both are forms of moving meditation. In one you have no set goals or ranking, it is all based on personal achievement. In the other, you have a set ranking structure and tournaments to see who is better. This follows the lines of femininity and masculinity in women and men. Like I said, it is a tendency and not a rule.

Domination/submission evolved out of our biology. There is no conspiracy on a man's part about that, despite what feminists purport. A man is (generally) physically stronger than a woman. What does testosterone do to a person? Does it make them submissive?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

Women are the glue that holds our culture together. Men do not supply that kind of glue

Women haven't been supplying it either.

They get pregnant and then instead of raising the child, send it off to daycare. Childcare services and school teachers raise children, not mothers. For most people, this means the government raises their kids.

If women want to be the glue, which I think is a hugely important job, they should be staying home and raising kids. For some reason, modern people SO disrespect full-time mothers that me saying this will be considered sexist - like it's an insult to be a mother. Wow. What does that say?

Personally I can't think of any more important role than being a mother. Any idiot can get a job, make money, and pay some government worker to raise kids like cattle. It takes a special woman to actually have the willingness and talent to raise her kids herself.

I agree that men are failing to support "the glue". But women are also failing to support the glue. Giving birth is not enough.

Also, to me this doesn't mean men are the "boss". This has not been true historically anyway, despite the lies we are sold. It just means the two parents have different roles. They still have to compromise with each other, they still have to give to each other openly and with love. If it's going to be a power struggle you're doing it wrong. It's only modern western oppressive Christianity that has thought of women as sinful. In most cultures throughout the last 75,000 years, the natural state of the family is one where both parents have power even though they are different realms of power.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by yossarian

If women want to be the glue, which I think is a hugely important job, they should be staying home and raising kids.

How about saying one parent should stay home and raise kids? The reason people get up in arms about a statement like that is becuase everyone is saying the woman should do it!

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

How about saying one parent should stay home and raise kids? The reason people get up in arms about a statement like that is becuase everyone is saying the woman should do it!

Yes, I see that too. Wonder why everyone goes on about women raising their children, when I'm quite sure men could(and should) do it (just) as well.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

How about saying one parent should stay home and raise kids? The reason people get up in arms about a statement like that is becuase everyone is saying the woman should do it!

The reason women get up and arms is because the media has told them that it is shameful to stay home.

It's not.

I agree, people can do it however they want. Lots of men have historically stayed home when circumstances called for it while the women went out and worked. It's definitely a job men can do and vice versa, circumstances permitting.

Nevertheless, biologically (pregnancy) and psychologically, there is a bias towards men specializing in outer duties while women specialize in inner duties. This doesn't mean the man is better or more important... in fact under these situations, it would be the man's duty to DIE in order to save his wife. "Women and children first" and all that.

But today it would be "daycare workers and children first" because women aren't providing that function.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Playlife

Yes, I see that too. Wonder why everyone goes on about women raising their children, when I'm quite sure men could(and should) do it (just) as well.

It's not that men can't, it's that in the majority of cases it makes sense for the woman do it.

Pregnancy is the first obvious issue. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have the pregnant person stay home than to send her out to build buildings and hunt buffalo and till the fields and run for President.

Psychologically, there are also many more subtler reasons. The most obvious is the way that each gender socially relates - men naturally gravitate towards shallow and wide social networks. Men on average have more friends than women, but each relationship is shallower on average. This is a physiological/psychological bias.

Women on the other hand tend to thrive and prefer to have a few very good friends.

A wide and shallow social network is the kind of thing that is ideal for work and business, while a few very close friends is ideal for community building and support networks. It's true that the man wins the bread in good times, but in rough times it is the woman's support structure that keeps the family alive.

Anyway I could go on for hours. I would never advocate forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do. However I honestly believe that almost everyone would be happier if they didn't fight against their own biology.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Ok, I'd actually really like to stay home with my kids when I have them or maybe even take turns with my husband. I completely agree that there is nothing wrong with being a mom and not having an outside career! However, I think there is also a lot of pressure put on mom's who want a career that they are ruining their kids by sending them to daycare. When that argument comes up it's the mom's who are pushed to give up the career for the kids and I always wondered why not the dads? They are just as much a parent as the mom.

Also, I am sure that there is a lot of subpar daycare out there, but I've worked with kids for many years and know that there are plenty of childcare providers that love the kids as their own and these kids are very well-adjusted. Their parents love them very much, not any less than one who stays home.

It just seems like when someone is called upon to sacrifice their own ambitions for their children, it's the woman. How about dad's stepping up?

[Rose of Cairo]

Mr Scientist, I love you. Glad to hear from you

[yossarian]

It just seems like when someone is called upon to sacrifice their own ambitions for their children, it's the woman. How about dad's stepping up?

1. I don't see why it should be considered a sacrifice at all. Since when it is some wonderful pleasure to go to work? Most men who work are working for their family, they are working to go home and see their kids and wife. Of course when you see them again on Monday, they are often depressed because their wife yelled at them all weekend. Nevertheless they still just want to go home and see her again. Gluttons for punishment I guess.

2. The men that I've worked with in professional life would love to stay home. There are a variety of things that make it hard.

2.1. One is that the court system is entirely biased to protect women. Stay at home dads are not looked at as child providers but rather as deadbeats. In a divorce, the woman will get the kids and the dad will have to pay child support even if he was the primary caregiver, even if he was staying at home. Stay-at-home-moms have massive protection under the law, which men simply don't have. Combine this with the social stigma, the view of men as all pedophiles and rapists, and staying at home takes a very brave and enlightened man. I still think some men SHOULD do it. I think we should have a society where every home has someone raising the kids, and I can see a situation where like 30% of those households have men staying home.

This would take a lot of enlightened social changes though. It takes a very enlightened woman to stay at home herself these days, since the media has taught her that it is shameful to be a full-time mom.

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I would never advocate forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do. However I honestly believe that almost everyone would be happier if they didn't fight against their own biology.

Such comments are funny. You say "however, I honestly believe ..." as if that comment somehow contradicted the "I would never advocate ... anyone to do ... they don't want to do". In my book, someone doing what s/he wants to do means that they don't fight against their own biology".

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Playlife

Such comments are funny. You say "however, I honestly believe ..." as if that comment somehow contradicted the "I would never advocate ... anyone to do ... they don't want to do". In my book, someone doing what s/he wants to do means that they don't fight against their own biology".

Modern language is a funny thing.

We are brainwashed to think that when someone gives an opinion, it means that they want the government to enforce that opinion. How incredibly awful!

So when I speak, I speak with the social assumptions in mind. In my mind, the stuff I'm saying could not possibly be considered offensive, yet I know that it will trigger tons of conditioning among people who have (IMHO) been abused by society's expectations.

The gender war is a false war. The real war is between humans who want to live free, and the government-media complex that wants to turn people into machines. This system oppresses genders equally and pits them against each other. This system has convinced women that they must get a job to be a real person. This system has convinced men that they are brutal, stupid, pathetic and not worthy of respect unless they are rich.

This system holds everyone in the grip of materialism, it teaches people not to care for themselves and the people in their life but rather treat those people with indifference and let the government "care" for them.

It's extremely pathological and tries to induce shame around every corner.

As far as leadership goes, the majority of human societies throughout the last 75,000 years have had dual-leadership. It's NOT true that there has been some overarching patriarchy - this only applies to modern monotheism. Women were specifically repressed because the power they naturally wield is dangerous to the elite who want to enslave everyone. In a naturally formed society that is free from the tyranny of the government/media/religion-complex, women hold a lot of power and their lives are actually valued more than the lives of men. This isn't because men are worthless or don't value themselves, it's because the men see that their biology is suited for sacrifice. The men sacrifice willingly out of love and devotion.

It also helps to have a perspective that is greater than the tiny materialist world. We live multiple lives people! We live countless lives. Reincarnation is a fact to anyone who wants to study the scientific data objectively. (A rare thing - most people are trained to be biased when studying the paranormal)

In the context of many-lives where everyone will spend about half the time as each gender, how can we get steamed over gender roles? This thing called humanity is bigger than each of us individually. We don't need to constantly focus on our little self and it's little needs, there is a bigger game to be played, a game that lasts a lot longer than 80 years.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by yossarian

1. I don't see why it should be considered a sacrifice at all. Since when it is some wonderful pleasure to go to work?

Is no one passionate about their work? Many women desire to have a career. There may be a woman who loves science and desires to become a biologist who will discover a new organism, or to be a doctor who helps people. Not all jobs are druggery to which the men dutifully go. Many men get great fullfillment out of their professional ambitions and my point is only that if they don't have to give that up in order to have a family, then why is it necessary for a woman to do so?

Just to be clear, for me it's no sacrifice because one of my biggest goals has always been to have and raise healthy, conscious and contributing children. Still, if I have a daughter who wants to be an astronaut, I don't see the justice in telling her that she can't also have a family because she is somehow harming her kids by not staying home.

Originally Posted by yossarian

This would take a lot of enlightened social changes though. It takes a very enlightened woman to stay at home herself these days, since the media has taught her that it is shameful to be a full-time mom.

I would say there's about equal shaming on both sides. Heard of the "mommy wars?" No matter which choice you make as a woman someone is going to tell you you're doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by yossarian

2. The men that I've worked with in professional life would love to stay home. There are a variety of things that make it hard.

2.1. One is that the court system is entirely biased to protect women. Stay at home dads are not looked at as child providers but rather as deadbeats. In a divorce, the woman will get the kids and the dad will have to pay child support even if he was the primary caregiver, even if he was staying at home. Stay-at-home-moms have massive protection under the law, which men simply don't have.

The court system could use a lot of changes that's for sure.

However, in a lot of my experience a lot of men want to stay home until they realize what it entails. It's not all relaxation and bon-bons. Now, that's not fair to all men, of course, there are those who would approach it with lots of ferver. But many of the dads I've seen try to stay home can see why women are eager for careers outside the home and why for some, staying home can feel like a sacrifice of your own desires -- even though you love your children with all your heart.

I was reading an article just the other day about a stay-at-home dad patting himself on the back (and talking about how much women could learn from SAHDs) when his wife still has to come home and do the majority of housework while he goes out with his friends. Yes, their child is well taken care of, but he's not really doing what SAHMs usually do. If the mom's who were staying home had their husbands coming in from work to do a majority of the housework while they went out with friends I think things would be very different.