Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens

[ruby sparks]

I'm not sure how to explain myself more clearly. She can make herself look more sexually attractive to some imaginary man or men order to feel better about herself even if she's alone in the room. She's still making herself more into a desired sexual object.

It's a bit like a gun is for shooting people. It doesn't matter if you wear a gun or hang it on the wall because it's pretty. A huge part of why we like guns is because they can shoot people. There's nothing anybody can do to explain that away. Even if you drill it out, so it can't physically shoot anybody. It's aestetic value still comes from it's association. Did that metaphor clear it up?

No.

I get the part where you're telling people why they do stuff. I get that part.

 

[Toni]

So, all of the little old ladies, who used to be my patients, had their hair done and dressed in their favorite clothing just because they are sexual beings? Or could it be that women dress to enhance their own self esteem or to fit in with their in-group, or to conform with the expectations of society?

We are more than simply sexual beings? That's what some of you don't seem to understand. If you only identify yourself as a sexual being, fine, just don't project that identity on the rest of us.

Then why are they enhancing sexually attractive characteristics? And why wouldn't little old ladies like to feel sexy?

Yes, we are more than sexual beings. There's plenty of things in our appearance that we can play around with that hasn't got to do with sexual attraction. A lot of people do. It's not hard to tell which are which, is it? Some parts of our dress are about looking fancy, tasteful or rich. No sex involved. Or they can do other things than fiddle with their appearance. But if a woman wears stuff to create an hourglass profile, push up her tits and/or wear shoes to tilt her pelvis back there's no question about what she's doing. Consciously or subconsciously.

BTW, we are social beings. "Conforming to social norms and expectations of society" is what we do. Humans are inherently tribal. I don't like how it's seen as something bad to conform to social norms. How about us stopping with trying to shame people for that? People who don't follow the current fashion, all that means is that they're always following the last seasons fashions. Everybody follows fashion. To their best ability. Nobody has their own unique and special taste. It's all derivative in some sense. I think fashionistas don't get enough understanding or love from the educated classes. I think they're doing a great service to mankind.

One more time. Generally speaking women, including young women, don't dress to please men or to attract male attention. We don't need to do that. Plus, if you lived in my town, you will see a lot of women wearing baggy sweat pants, and loose tops. Do they dress that way to attract men, or are heterosexual men simply attracted to women regardless of how we dress? I personally think it's the latter, based on my experience as a woman for my entire life. We also don't need men to tell us why we do the things we do. That's just obnoxious.

It depends how they're wearing it. Wearing baggy, loose fitting clothes can make you look skinnier than you are. Fashion is often ingeniously designed to hide unflattering things, while showing off the flattering things you have. Sexy fashion for overweight people is it's own universe.

I'm sorry: it's not all about you, no matter what your mommies told you.

I think every woman who has responded in this thread has offered that what she did or did not wear did not either attract nor dissuade men from whatever.


Is it possible that men as well as women simply respond to confidence? That whatever displays an individual might make that convey confidence: dress, grooming, athletic or intellectual or domestic ability might be what is seen as attractive? Not necessarily consciously, of course.

Women have long relied on other women much more than men to get along in their lives: to help rear children, for help in sickness and childbirth and early days after giving birth, to share the work to provide food and domestic goods, to help with communal chores such as farming or weaving, etc. It makes sense that women would want to look strong and capable and confident===attractive to other women. That dressing and grooming in a certain manner conveys kinship/belonging, being in the group, which affords greater protection than being a singleton and a definite advantage in terms of survival of the individual and any offspring. Aside from insemination, men are not really necessary. Most of what men 'protect' women from is other men.

 

[southernhybrid]

Maybe some of you are confusing sensual with sexual. Sensual can be about sex, but it's also about anything that pleases any of the senses in a non sexual way.

So, when I put lotion on my legs and enjoy the feel of it, it's because it's sensual. The same probably goes for Zoidberg's ex wife. She had a sensual experience when she took a hot bath. It I wear a clothing, and some sparkly jewelry, and look in the mirror approvingly, it's because enjoying looking at myself is sensual, not sexual. If I wear my hair long and spend a lot of time brushing and styling it, I'm enjoying the sensual experience of touching my hair. If I give my little dog, a belly rub and she makes pleasing sounds, she is having a sensual experience because it feels to good to have my hand gently rubbing her. If my husband softly tells me that he loves me, and I enjoy the sound of his voice. His voice is sensually pleasing and has nothing to do with the last time or the next time that we have sex. If I eat a delicious bowl of grapes, the taste is sensual, not sexual. When a group of women go out together and compliment each other on their taste in clothing, they are enjoying a visually sensual experience together, which has nothing to do with sex.

Does that help any of you understand the difference between pleasing our senses in the non sexual way as compared to pleasing our senses in a sexual way? If not, y'all are hopelessly deluded when it comes to why women do what we do.

And, I did have to laugh when Zoidberg said that women wear baggy clothing to make them look thinner. That was a good one. Besides that, not all women even want to look thin. I'm a rare woman who isn't overweight in a city that has a very high rate of obesity. There are plenty of men who like a big fat woman, but that doesn't mean that women are gaining weight to please men. I have no doubt about that, considering all the serious health issues related to obesity. But, in certain groups of young women, being overweight is a thing. Some of the very young women that I worked with years ago, used to tell me I was too scrawny. So, being overweight apparently didn't hurt the self esteem of these large women.

I have no idea why some women do body shaping modifications. I assume that they are somewhat insecure, but maybe they just like the way certain body parts look when enhanced. I've known more women that had breast reduction surgery than breast enhancement surgery. They did it for health reasons because extra large breasts can cause back problems among other things. I've also known a couple of women who had breast enlargement surgery when they were very young, only to regret it later. Btw, small breasts were all the rage when I was young in the 60s. Believe it or not, some women even put bands on their boobs to make them look smaller. Was that because most men were attracted to smaller breasts? I seriously doubt it. It was just the style, along with mini skirts, which I wore in the late 60s, but the style changed to midi skirts and maxi skirts shortly after that. I remember wearing nothing but dresses that came all the way to my ankles during the early 70s. Why? I think it might have been because I liked to look stylish when I was in my 20s. It certainly wasn't done to attract men.

 

[Godless Raven]

I have been starring at those photos long enough that I realized by looking in to each of their eyes that they feel exactly like I do...that they are not dressing up with their medallions and well oiled muscular bodies so they can be deemed "sexy" by yourself of any other person. They aren't dressing this way to turn women on. They are just enjoying themselves having fun and expressing it.

I know this 100% by looking at their photos. Did you know there are SOME people out there that would look at these photos and decided these guys were looking to get laid. Hmmmpf! Pigs! And if THAT's not enough evidence for you, I have a couple of friends that also say they dress up in speedos and medallions just so they can be happy about themselves, not so women can look at them like they want sex or are to be ogled. Therefore, obviously everyone who is decent agrees with me.

What's wrong with this type of argument?

You do have a point, imo. Or maybe three. Yes, one or two have decried mind reading while mind reading. Yes, if the OP was only meant to be about 'girls I know' then it is of limited use for discussion of the issues. Yes saying that girls (or indeed anyone, male or female) only ever dress purely to please themselves doesn't have any legs to stand on, if you'll excuse the analogy, or is at least overstated. The phrase 'dress to impress' has common currency for a reason. This says nothing about an individual's choice in any one case of course, or their rights to cover up or reveal or appear as they choose (within legal limits, which some might say are a bit prudish regarding nudity but that's a slightly separate issue).

Yes, the point about the male pics being celebrities is largely... beside the point. Non-celebrities could have been shown as easily, and some of the relevant issues affect female celebrities anyway.

But beyond that, wider issues remain, imo. Men, generally, and indeed other women to a lesser extent, tend to misattribute the reasons why girls (and women) dress, groom, make up and otherwise modify or enhance their appearance in certain (numerous) ways. There is at least a disjoint in understanding and a miscommunication. And this can lead to problems. What sort of problems? Not necessarily rape or assault, obviously, but there's still several others. One, for example, is the victim-blaming (and sometimes slut-shaming) that goes on in the minds of many (including other women, but mostly men) if there's a problematic incident (could be staring, comments, harassment, unwanted attention or touching, physical assault or even rape). I could go on. I've already said a lot in previous posts. The issue is nuanced and complicated. I just wanted to say that I agree with your points of criticism but that there's a lot of other stuff too which is valid, imo.

I appreciate you saying you agree with some of the points I made. TBH when I started reading this thread I couldn't believe anyone let it get passed the original premise which was ridiculous.

I agree that there is a huge imbalance of men who think a woman's clothing can tell them if she "wants it" vs women who think you can look a woman's clothing and tell the same thing. But coming from a history not that damn long ago where the majority of men thought like barbaric pigs, we have come a long way and the progress has continued every year I've been alive at least. So wouldn't an OP that stated there's a diminishing problem with troglodyte's that still think they can tell what a female wants/thinks by their clothing. This is what I think about them. Vs, I'm a mind reader and I know a bunch of people feel the same way I do and so do a few people on here, so therefore this is how women feel and did you know there are some _____'s that still think different? I mean, wtf, was this supposed to be a master clinic in bad arguments and premises?

It is interesting that from my experience both IRL and when I'm online is that there's plenty, and I mean plenty of women that think they know by looking at the photos of celebrities or whatever guys that THEY can tell what their motives are, what they think and whether they are just looking to get laid. It seems that just because there are a lot of men that probably would look at the same photos and agree, it is somehow okay to say those folks can read minds...but...damn those dirty old bastards that think they can tell if a woman wants to get fucked just because she wore a saran wrap micro dress with no undies to a dance or prom.



I do agree that there are lots of females out there of all ages that dress up for themselves. I know some. I'm proud that my wife is one. We both agreed long ago that she doesn't dress because I like something, she dresses for whatever makes her feel good on any given day. I feel like any female should do the same should that be what they like.

I'm pretty sure you and I agree on most points here.

 

[Godless Raven]

It is just as ignorant and foolish to profess that a person knows what a woman's intentions are by their dress as it is for the creeps you're eluding to looking at them and saying "I can tell by looking at them that they all want to fuck".

Nobody has said that in this thread. So please drop that.

Humans conflate human aesthetics with sexual attractiveness. We do it on a basic level. Everything we like about a persons look can be traced back to sex, or rather things that signal either availability or genetic health or whatever. This is unavoidable.

It doesn't really matter what the girls think they're doing, or what they're telling eachother they're doing, we can see what they're doing from a distance. They're making themselves look sexy. You'd have to be a complete moron not to connect those dots.

We are fundamentally sexual beings. Denying that comes across as self delusion to the n'th degree.

You...you read the original OP, right?



You appear to be pretty much insinuating they are a complete moron.

I have no problem with going through this entire conversation bit by bit to point out where what I'm saying was going on.

I thought it was pretty obvious.

As far as the first statement of yours that I put in bold font...I think that can be proven patently false on it's 1st legs simply by the fact that historically there have been many women that have chosen a male mate because they physically looked healthy enough and strong enough to keep them safe and to keep any offspring that person may have wanted to have long before they ever met Joe Blow. It wouldn't have to do anything at all with "sex", but literally about physical safety, yet the person is attracted to the persons look because of this. Just like there are women who are attracted to financial security because it will mean they won't have to worry about running water or starving, and they know that the kids they always wanted will be well provided for (and these are motivations I don't judge anyone for having, I know males that have been attracted to the same types of security. Do you disagree that this happens? That's the problem with statements that start with "everything" unfortunately.

As far as the second statement of yours I put in bold... ...can I please get the opinions of the rest of the posters on this thread as to whether it's obvious and that a person would have to be a complete moron not to agree with the good Dr's assertions?

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe some of you are confusing sensual with sexual. Sensual can be about sex, but it's also about anything that pleases any of the senses in a non sexual way.

So, when I put lotion on my legs and enjoy the feel of it, it's because it's sensual. The same probably goes for Zoidberg's ex wife. She had a sensual experience when she took a hot bath. It I wear a clothing, and some sparkly jewelry, and look in the mirror approvingly, it's because enjoying looking at myself is sensual, not sexual. If I wear my hair long and spend a lot of time brushing and styling it, I'm enjoying the sensual experience of touching my hair. If I give my little dog, a belly rub and she makes pleasing sounds, she is having a sensual experience because it feels to good to have my hand gently rubbing her. If my husband softly tells me that he loves me, and I enjoy the sound of his voice. His voice is sensually pleasing and has nothing to do with the last time or the next time that we have sex. If I eat a delicious bowl of grapes, the taste is sensual, not sexual. When a group of women go out together and compliment each other on their taste in clothing, they are enjoying a visually sensual experience together, which has nothing to do with sex.

Does that help any of you understand the difference between pleasing our senses in the non sexual way as compared to pleasing our senses in a sexual way? If not, y'all are hopelessly deluded when it comes to why women do what we do.

Indeed.

The other aspect of the bathing and bodycare thing is that it's associated with feeling (and being) healthy. Again, not necessarily sexual. Ditto feeling young, or feeling or being physically fit. See also: sportswomen. No, they do not wear those revealing outfits to titillate.

I have a feeling someone is going to tell us that youth, health and physical fitness are all about sex.

 

[ruby sparks]

Women have long relied on other women much more than men to get along in their lives: to help rear children, for help in sickness and childbirth and early days after giving birth, to share the work to provide food and domestic goods, to help with communal chores such as farming or weaving, etc. It makes sense that women would want to look strong and capable and confident===attractive to other women. That dressing and grooming in a certain manner conveys kinship/belonging, being in the group, which affords greater protection than being a singleton and a definite advantage in terms of survival of the individual and any offspring. Aside from insemination, men are not really necessary. Most of what men 'protect' women from is other men.

That is a very good point, imo, the kinship thing.

Aside from insemination, men are not really necessary.

Um, what?

Most of what men 'protect' women from is other men.

Up to a point, yes, but there's other stuff, just danger generally. Back in the day, when these gender roles developed, it might have been other animals. And men's traditional role wasn't just protecting women (and/or children), traditionally it's been providing for them, and often doing risky stuff in order to achieve that.

 

[ruby sparks]

Check out this fab ad:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJXNY38q2S0[/YOUTUBE]

- - - Updated - - -

This one, if anything, is even better:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfj0iP2uumM[/YOUTUBE]

Same director in both cases. Kim Gerhig, who also directed the new Gillette ad.

 

[ruby sparks]

can I please get the opinions of the rest of the posters on this thread as to whether it's obvious and that a person would have to be a complete moron not to agree with the good Dr's assertions?

I'm thinking of starting to call him Dr Freudberg. Does that answer your question?

 

[Toni]

That is a very good point, imo, the kinship thing.



Um, what?

Most of what men 'protect' women from is other men.

Up to a point, yes, but there's other stuff, just danger generally. Back in the day, when these gender roles developed, it might have been other animals. And men's traditional role wasn't just protecting women (and/or children), traditionally it's been providing for them, and often doing risky stuff in order to achieve that.

From a biological standpoint, men aren't necessary beyond insemination. They can be beneficial, sure. But in most hunter/gatherer societies, women do most of the work, childrearing and of course, childbearing. Women also hunt and fish, in ancient times, and today in some societies including modern day American society, where women are increasingly finding that they get by without men as well as with men. Sometimes better. The truth is that if my husband and I were separately charged with surviving on a deserted island or bit of forest, I'd have a better chance of surviving simply by virtue of how I was raised vs how he was raised. Now, drop us in NYC and he'd be better off because that's his home environment and absolutely not mine. But I can find plants to eat and can catch/kill small fish and game, build a shelter, identify poisonous plants, navigate by stars, and all that. Now, if a bear were coming after both of us, he'd have an advantage as his legs are much longer than mine and he can run faster. Neither of us nor anyone here is likely to survive a bear attack out on our own. I also have first aid skills and he doesn't. And he has worse allergies than I do.

Now, I write this as someone who has been with the same spouse for decades and who has no inclination to change our status quo. Nor does he. But frankly, I always knew I could get along with out him and he'd survive without me. Are we better together? I think so. At least most of the time (and I'm sure there are times the thought runs through his head about whether or not his life would be easier without me. Like I said: we've been married for decades now.) We love each other and people are almost always better off with someone who loves them and who they love in return. But survival? We could each survive without the other. Economically, we're stronger because we've been together for so long and have supported and aided one another's careers, pooled our resources, etc. But we've rather purposefully designed our lives so that if we need to, we can get along without each other. Of course, this is the modern world we're talking about here, and a long term marriage with both partners well enough educated to be able to support ourselves (and the other one if need be) on our own.

These 'gender roles' seem to have developed as people began living in cities, actually.

I don't think my life would be better without men. I don't think society or the world is better without men. I acknowledge the contributions of men to our society. I wish to hell they'd acknowledge the contributions of women to society--and I'm not talking about childbearing and childrearing and keeping a nice home. I'm talking about in science and mathematics and literature and art and agriculture and building and every aspect of society where women's contributions have been unacknowledged and ignored and often stolen.

 

[Godless Raven]

can I please get the opinions of the rest of the posters on this thread as to whether it's obvious and that a person would have to be a complete moron not to agree with the good Dr's assertions?

I'm thinking of starting to call him Dr Freudberg. Does that answer your question?

 

[DrZoidberg]

As far as the first statement of yours that I put in bold font...I think that can be proven patently false on it's 1st legs simply by the fact that historically there have been many women that have chosen a male mate because they physically looked healthy enough and strong enough to keep them safe and to keep any offspring that person may have wanted to have long before they ever met Joe Blow. It wouldn't have to do anything at all with "sex", but literally about physical safety, yet the person is attracted to the persons look because of this. Just like there are women who are attracted to financial security because it will mean they won't have to worry about running water or starving, and they know that the kids they always wanted will be well provided for (and these are motivations I don't judge anyone for having, I know males that have been attracted to the same types of security. Do you disagree that this happens?

No, but I think you're cutting corners on your logic. The implication you are making is that women forgo sexual attraction and instead chose physical or financial security. While that certainly happens, it's not by design. Nor what are talking about. We are talking about what we actually find sexually attractive in a partner. Women are often sexually turned on by muscles and/or money. Ie expressions power. Women who go for this aren't less biologicaly remote controlled or more rational. Sexual attraction is never rational.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not sure how to explain myself more clearly. She can make herself look more sexually attractive to some imaginary man or men order to feel better about herself even if she's alone in the room. She's still making herself more into a desired sexual object.

It's a bit like a gun is for shooting people. It doesn't matter if you wear a gun or hang it on the wall because it's pretty. A huge part of why we like guns is because they can shoot people. There's nothing anybody can do to explain that away. Even if you drill it out, so it can't physically shoot anybody. It's aestetic value still comes from it's association. Did that metaphor clear it up?

No.

I get the part where you're telling people why they do stuff. I get that part.

Bah... get off your high horse. We are speculating on what they are thinking. The "nobody can know what anybody is thinking" position is not a brave stance. It's just lazy imho.

 

[ruby sparks]

From a biological standpoint, men aren't necessary beyond insemination. They can be beneficial, sure. But in most hunter/gatherer societies, women do most of the work, childrearing and of course, childbearing. Women also hunt and fish, in ancient times, and today in some societies including modern day American society, where women are increasingly finding that they get by without men as well as with men. Sometimes better. The truth is that if my husband and I were separately charged with surviving on a deserted island or bit of forest, I'd have a better chance of surviving simply by virtue of how I was raised vs how he was raised. Now, drop us in NYC and he'd be better off because that's his home environment and absolutely not mine. But I can find plants to eat and can catch/kill small fish and game, build a shelter, identify poisonous plants, navigate by stars, and all that. Now, if a bear were coming after both of us, he'd have an advantage as his legs are much longer than mine and he can run faster. Neither of us nor anyone here is likely to survive a bear attack out on our own. I also have first aid skills and he doesn't. And he has worse allergies than I do.

Now, I write this as someone who has been with the same spouse for decades and who has no inclination to change our status quo. Nor does he. But frankly, I always knew I could get along with out him and he'd survive without me. Are we better together? I think so. At least most of the time (and I'm sure there are times the thought runs through his head about whether or not his life would be easier without me. Like I said: we've been married for decades now.) We love each other and people are almost always better off with someone who loves them and who they love in return. But survival? We could each survive without the other. Economically, we're stronger because we've been together for so long and have supported and aided one another's careers, pooled our resources, etc. But we've rather purposefully designed our lives so that if we need to, we can get along without each other. Of course, this is the modern world we're talking about here, and a long term marriage with both partners well enough educated to be able to support ourselves (and the other one if need be) on our own.

These 'gender roles' seem to have developed as people began living in cities, actually.

I don't think my life would be better without men. I don't think society or the world is better without men. I acknowledge the contributions of men to our society. I wish to hell they'd acknowledge the contributions of women to society--and I'm not talking about childbearing and childrearing and keeping a nice home. I'm talking about in science and mathematics and literature and art and agriculture and building and every aspect of society where women's contributions have been unacknowledged and ignored and often stolen.

Yeah, saying men are (even biologically) not necessary beyond insemination is....well, it's dangerous for one thing. How about, women (even biologically) are only necessary for gestating a pregnancy? Or moving on, only necessary for gestating a pregnancy and weaning a child?

I take the point about the history of gender roles. I read that the divergence really shifted up a gear when we moved from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, not when we moved to cities, but my guess is that (a) the whole thing was gradual, (b) that there may have been more than one shift (moving to cities may have been one) and (c) hunter-gatherer societies, while 'more' gender egalitarian, were and are not havens of gender equality, so it would be a matter of degree, because (d) once you have sexual dimorphism which involves one sex being bigger and stronger (which was the case for our species even before the hunter-gatherer stage), you tend to get different behaviours, and we can see this in other apes and other species.

I also take all your other points about co-operation, collaboration and an appreciation of contributions, and yes, historically and still today even if to a lesser extent in 'western', developed societies, women's contributions have not been properly appreciated. In an ideal world, the sexes would collaborate a lot more, but for some reason disagreement and the taking of 'sides' seems to be much more common, especially in debates. In the real world, I think things are improving a lot. With a way to go. My wife, for example, has been a teacher in a (large, academic, mixed-sex) school here for 30 years, and she would say that women teachers are still often under-appreciated, especially by some 'traditional' men, and I totally believe and agree with her. That her school recently had a female head teacher and two female vice-principals does not negate this, though it is a sign of progress.

 

[ruby sparks]

I get the part where you're telling people why they do stuff. I get that part.

Bah... get off your high horse. We are speculating on what they are thinking. The "nobody can know what anybody is thinking" position is not a brave stance. It's just lazy imho.

Imo, no, you were not speculating, you were doing quite a bit of claiming. Even if you were speculating, you were speculating heavily in one particular direction, possibly the direction your erection is pointing.

As ever, I agree with you up to a point, but I think you often overstate the point, as you do when you question the existence of toxic masculinity or the female-subordinating nature of patriarchy.

Up to what point do I agree with you here? Well, for example, yes, I agree that people generally are often not fully aware of the reasons they do stuff, and that sex/reproductive issues may actually be part of the reasons in certain circumstances even if we (men and women, boys and girls) don't overtly realise it or realise it fully. But that can be greatly overstated. And once something is overstated, it's going wrong, and we start applying too-thick paint with too broad a brush. Furthermore, you could do with a bit more data and a bit less anecdote, but that's not just you, and I too often use anecdote, but the topic could do with more empirical data. And words like logic and proof are mostly out of place too.

 

[Toni]

From a biological standpoint, men aren't necessary beyond insemination. They can be beneficial, sure. But in most hunter/gatherer societies, women do most of the work, childrearing and of course, childbearing. Women also hunt and fish, in ancient times, and today in some societies including modern day American society, where women are increasingly finding that they get by without men as well as with men. Sometimes better. The truth is that if my husband and I were separately charged with surviving on a deserted island or bit of forest, I'd have a better chance of surviving simply by virtue of how I was raised vs how he was raised. Now, drop us in NYC and he'd be better off because that's his home environment and absolutely not mine. But I can find plants to eat and can catch/kill small fish and game, build a shelter, identify poisonous plants, navigate by stars, and all that. Now, if a bear were coming after both of us, he'd have an advantage as his legs are much longer than mine and he can run faster. Neither of us nor anyone here is likely to survive a bear attack out on our own. I also have first aid skills and he doesn't. And he has worse allergies than I do.

Now, I write this as someone who has been with the same spouse for decades and who has no inclination to change our status quo. Nor does he. But frankly, I always knew I could get along with out him and he'd survive without me. Are we better together? I think so. At least most of the time (and I'm sure there are times the thought runs through his head about whether or not his life would be easier without me. Like I said: we've been married for decades now.) We love each other and people are almost always better off with someone who loves them and who they love in return. But survival? We could each survive without the other. Economically, we're stronger because we've been together for so long and have supported and aided one another's careers, pooled our resources, etc. But we've rather purposefully designed our lives so that if we need to, we can get along without each other. Of course, this is the modern world we're talking about here, and a long term marriage with both partners well enough educated to be able to support ourselves (and the other one if need be) on our own.

These 'gender roles' seem to have developed as people began living in cities, actually.

I don't think my life would be better without men. I don't think society or the world is better without men. I acknowledge the contributions of men to our society. I wish to hell they'd acknowledge the contributions of women to society--and I'm not talking about childbearing and childrearing and keeping a nice home. I'm talking about in science and mathematics and literature and art and agriculture and building and every aspect of society where women's contributions have been unacknowledged and ignored and often stolen.

Yeah, saying men are (even biologically) not necessary beyond insemination is....well, it's dangerous for one thing.

For whom?

How about, women (even biologically) are only necessary for gestating a pregnancy? Or moving on, only necessary for gestating a pregnancy and weaning a child?

All of which are infinitely more complicated, from a biological standpoint, than insemination. Sperm can be frozen almost indefinitely, after all and are produced in mass quantities. Eggs are relatively more scarce---a female is born with the entire compliment of eggs for her entire lifetime, although they are not mature at birth, while males produce sperm throughout their lives from adolescence onward. Eggs are more difficult to maintain in a frozen state. Yes, babies can be fed on formula and do well. Conception and gestation are the real barriers.

I take the point about the history of gender roles. I read that the divergence really shifted up a gear when we moved from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, not when we moved to cities, but my guess is that (a) the whole thing was gradual, (b) that there may have been more than one shift (moving to cities may have been one) and (c) hunter-gatherer societies, while 'more' gender egalitarian, were and are not havens of gender equality, so it would be a matter of degree, because (d) once you have sexual dimorphism which involves one sex being bigger and stronger (which was the case for our species even before the hunter-gatherer stage), you tend to get different behaviours, and we can see this in other apes and other species.

Think about WWII: Most men of reproductive age were off fighting, leaving women home to...run farms, factories, step into all sorts of roles that men had reserved for themselves. I'm not suggesting that war is a good thing or that women didn't truly miss their fathers, brothers, lovers, husbands who went off to fight each other (and kill plenty of women and children along with fellow soldiers). But when the war was over, women were told they needed to step aside and make room for the returning men. That it was their duty and necessary. Not every woman really felt that it was 'necessary' or desirable or in their personal best interests. But generally speaking, women love their men and did what was supposedly best for the men, regardless of their own personal preferences, just as they had seen them off to war, had faithfully taken on traditionally male roles to keep the home front running, and so on.

I do think it's been rather clever of men to not have such all encompassing wars since then. Oh, sure, there have been plenty of wars but none so large as to take most of the able bodied men from most of Europe and the US and create holes in society and the economy that women would step into and fill out of necessity. And maybe be reluctant to turn back over to men when they came home.

I don't mean to suggest that women in any way view war as desirable or a good thing or in their better interests. They don't. They'd much rather have their loved ones safe at home. They'd much rather not worry about being bombed or killed or starved or raped or herded into camps and exterminated. They'd rather that not happen to their children or the older men or the soldiers themselves. They'd rather not have all the disease and death and destruction and utter, useless waste that war brings. They'd rather have peace and prosperity or at least peace. They'd prefer to see their sons grow up to become fathers rather than die on some battlefield or some hospital. Most would prefer to keep their husbands alive and well. And for those who don't care for their husbands, divorce is much easier now than it used to be.

I also take all your other points about co-operation, collaboration and an appreciation of contributions, and yes, historically and still today even if to a lesser extent in 'western', developed societies, women's contributions have not been properly appreciated. In an ideal world, the sexes would collaborate a lot more, but for some reason disagreement and the taking of 'sides' seems to be much more common, especially in debates. In the real world, I think things are improving a lot. With a way to go. My wife, for example, has been a teacher in a (large, academic, mixed-sex) school here for 30 years, and she would say that women teachers are still often under-appreciated, especially by some 'traditional' men, and I totally believe and agree with her. That her school recently had a female head teacher and two female vice-principals does not negate this, though it is a sign of progress.

It's 2019. Slow progress indeed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I get the part where you're telling people why they do stuff. I get that part.

Bah... get off your high horse. We are speculating on what they are thinking. The "nobody can know what anybody is thinking" position is not a brave stance. It's just lazy imho.

Imo, no, you were not speculating, you were doing quite a bit of claiming. Even if you were speculating, you were speculating heavily in one particular direction, possibly the direction your erection is pointing.

As ever, I agree with you up to a point, but I think you often overstate the point, as you do when you question the existence of toxic masculinity or the female-subordinating nature of patriarchy.

Up to what point do I agree with you here? Well, for example, yes, I agree that people generally are often not fully aware of the reasons they do stuff, and that sex/reproductive issues may actually be part of the reasons in certain circumstances even if we (men and women, boys and girls) don't overtly realise it or realise it fully. But that can be greatly overstated. And once something is overstated, it's going wrong, and we start applying too-thick paint with too broad a brush. Furthermore, you could do with a bit more data and a bit less anecdote, but that's not just you, and I too often use anecdote, but the topic could do with more empirical data. And words like logic and proof are mostly out of place too.

I looked at the available evidence and drew the only available conclusion. Your (as well as the others) replies offer no other theory. Instead just babble and failed attempts to sound clever. I'm not impressed

 

[ruby sparks]

I looked at the available evidence and drew the only available conclusion. Your (as well as the others) replies offer no other theory. Instead just babble and failed attempts to sound clever.

Yeah, right.

 

[ruby sparks]

For whom?

Well, if someone says that men are only necessary or useful for insemination, someone else might say that women are only useful for having (and perhaps weaning) babies. Saying that aside from doing thing 'X', sex 'Y' are not really necessary, is problematic. Is that not self-explanatory as regards how harmful it might be and indeed has been for women, for example?

How about, women (even biologically) are only necessary for gestating a pregnancy? Or moving on, only necessary for gestating a pregnancy and weaning a child?

All of which are infinitely more complicated, from a biological standpoint, than insemination. Sperm can be frozen almost indefinitely, after all and are produced in mass quantities. Eggs are relatively more scarce---a female is born with the entire compliment of eggs for her entire lifetime, although they are not mature at birth, while males produce sperm throughout their lives from adolescence onward. Eggs are more difficult to maintain in a frozen state. Yes, babies can be fed on formula and do well. Conception and gestation are the real barriers.

Sure, but even if all that is true (which it is) we could still get to The Handmaid's Tale situation, for example, where women (indeed women's bodies) are corralled by men to do the things you are talking about. And indeed we don't have to imagine future dystopias, we can just look back at patriarchal history for something similar.

It's 2019. Slow progress indeed.

That's a matter of opinion. Some would say it was very fast. Humans have been doin' their thing for hundreds of thousands of years and more, and the roots of behaviour go way back before that, possibly millions of years. How long have modern views on gender been taken seriously on a wide scale? I have no problem if you disagree and think progress too slow.

 

[Toni]

Well, if someone says that men are only necessary or useful for insemination, someone else might say that women are only useful for having (and perhaps weaning) babies. Saying that aside from doing thing 'X', sex 'Y' are not really necessary, is problematic. Is that not self-explanatory as regards how harmful it might be and indeed has been for women, for example?

You mean, like the last 6000 years or so? Lol. Women have been there. Done that. Done with that, actually.

All of which are infinitely more complicated, from a biological standpoint, than insemination. Sperm can be frozen almost indefinitely, after all and are produced in mass quantities. Eggs are relatively more scarce---a female is born with the entire compliment of eggs for her entire lifetime, although they are not mature at birth, while males produce sperm throughout their lives from adolescence onward. Eggs are more difficult to maintain in a frozen state. Yes, babies can be fed on formula and do well. Conception and gestation are the real barriers.

Sure, but even if all that is true (which it is) we could still get to The Handmaid's Tale situation, for example, where women (indeed women's bodies) are corralled by men to do the things you are talking about. And indeed we don't have to imagine future dystopias, we can just look back at patriarchal history for something similar.

You are assuming that women would/will allow men to maintain that power. Why would we?

Seriously, suppose that the survival of the species depended upon humanity locating and colonizing a planet light years away. It would truly be wasteful to send men when you could simply have a large female crew of appropriate genetic fitness and of appropriate reproductive age and a nice, diverse and large bank of sperm samples from men who have been screened for genetic fitness, etc. Seriously: why waste any precious space on a spacecraft when some sperm would do just as well?

Or what about this: Women live in a society where men are kept...outside, given something to do that helps them maintain their physical fitness and demonstrates their genetic fitness and are allowed access to women at the women's choosing, when women decide who reproduces and with whom and when. Why not that? Women could select for men who demonstrate valuable characteristics: cooperation, intelligence, kindness, creativity, empathy. And select against men who demonstrate too much aggression, who show a propensity for violence, for cruelty. Oh, women, too. Only the best women would reproduce. Those who proved themselves unsatisfactory would be removed from the reproduction pool, as would unsuitable men. There would not even be a need to tell them that they had been deemed unfit for reproduction. Hard times, lower fertility rates and all that.....

But perhaps more plausible: parthenogenesis. There are a number of species which already use that method for reproduction. It's theoretically possible for humans as well. I dare say that it is actually technically possible or would be if we cared to explore that possibility. Then, of course, men would really be obsolete as only female offspring would occur.

I'm not suggesting that any of those scenarios is particularly pleasant, but from a biological perspective, it would work out just fine.

That's a matter of opinion. Some would say it was very fast. Humans have been doin' their thing for hundreds of thousands of years and more, and the roots of behaviour go way back before that, possibly millions of years. How long have modern views on gender been taken seriously on a wide scale? I have no problem if you disagree and think progress too slow.

How nice of you to allow me to have an opinion!