At 8/8/14 03:35 PM, sirleibl wrote:
Okay, I understand that men and women have biological, physical and psychological differences, but why would you consider one inferior to the other? What do you guys think?
Complex historical, political and sociological process built on centuries. We really can't just give a simple answer to this. Back during the Renaissance, when the political power was slowly moving away from the royalty's hands towards a parliament system, usually involving old white rich men, it was argued that women shouldn't take part in political power because of their inferior physical power, which is fucking dumb if you consider the fact that these old men were basically just as weak as a 12 years old boy trying to prove he's a tough motherfucker. It was just a way to backtrack on an already established dominance of men on women and try to give it some kind of reasoned structure to justify it. It was, let's not forget it, the beginning of the spreading of liberalism and reason seemed to be the way to structure our world. The fact is, that even then, the power was already uneven between men and women, so they had to basically change it, like actually reasoned and intelligent people would do, or try to figure a way to justify a load of bullshit that was already there.
It was also argued in Renaissance political philosophy that women had the power to create naturally (birth) and that men had to create culturally, hence the separation between nature and culture and the sexual segregation it involved. Even with that kind of authoritarian logic, there were holes, because men still had to try to control "supposedly" women nature and control their body, control the kids they had and basically just bypass their whole backward logic to further establish dominance over women.
If you look through anything written by dickbags who like to call themseles alpha-males (which also usually involves hating gays, queers and anything that would confront their dumb beliefs of what makes men real men), you'll realize that the more it changes, the more it stays the same. Similar backward and dumb arguments as those I mentioned and that are 300 years old, usually come back within these retarded men's flawed logic.
They first define what "the other" is, so women, gay men and basically everything that isn't fitting their notion of "true masculinity", to further circle jerk on how awesome they are. If you ask me, it's pathetic as all hell. It's based on a dumb notion of what womanhood is. They first define it, then they hate it. And if a woman doesn't fit the model they've created for themselves to hate, then they hate them ever more since they are challenging their views of what womanhood is. The logic goes something like this: "Women are weaker and inferior then men. But if they have a PhD, drive trucks and play in a hockey team, then they aren't really women, and they still are shit."
See? Flawless?
