paternalistic men

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Kayla »

Scott Mayers wrote:like that men are favored where they are taller and stronger by women and women are more favored where they are petite and apparently vulnerable. Our biology has not caught up to our intellectual capacities yet.
which is weird cause if a man wants to maximize the changes of his progeny surviving past child birth - and not killing the mother in the process - the tall wide-hipped girls are absolutely the way to go

i remember reading somewhere that in the recent decades there are more petite girls cause that is no longer an extremely deadly hazard at childbirth
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Scott Mayers »

Kayla wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:like that men are favored where they are taller and stronger by women and women are more favored where they are petite and apparently vulnerable. Our biology has not caught up to our intellectual capacities yet.
which is weird cause if a man wants to maximize the changes of his progeny surviving past child birth - and not killing the mother in the process - the tall wide-hipped girls are absolutely the way to go

i remember reading somewhere that in the recent decades there are more petite girls cause that is no longer an extremely deadly hazard at childbirth
I totally agree. Fortunate for me, I actually prefer a pretty face over any other possible feature and this alone is enough for me to at least be attracted to. And the only absolute distraction I have for even the most perfect person is if I can't stand their smell! And I'm even at fault of this last problem as I smoke and hate that it too makes me stink awful.
dionisos
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:03 am

Re: paternalistic men

Post by dionisos »

the feminist i discussed this with sees this sexism as being as bad as the more overt sexism that you can find in, say, men who beat their wives
What annoy me about some kind of feminist, is that they make this kind of insulting and biased comparisons between very different things.
I think it is much more harmful to call someone that open a door, a sexist, and a abuser, that to actually open the door…

What also annoy me, is that some of this kind, only speak about the aspect of things that could hurt women, and never how it could hurt men. It give me the feeling that for them, the only thing that really count is women. And honestly i think some are plainly sexist. (maybe a minority)

You could see these kind of things as a man thinking a women don’t have some capacities(it would be pretty ridiculous for the door example), but you could also see it as some kind of duty put on you only because you are a man, and she is a women, and people around will think you are rude and unmannerly if you don’t do it.
It is not only about what the women is able to do, but what you should do for them, because they are important, more than you are.
I think it hurt also man, and how some could see themselves, as some disposable, for the more beautiful, good, and important sex.
It is bad for some, and imposed on them by social norms, or what they think of social norms, and you should not call them sexist, or worst, criminal, for doing it.

Also some just help other because they are nice, for the only sake of helping other, and this have nothing to do with capacity or dominance, or being a woman or a man. And they will get hurt by this kind of feminist.
User avatar
Arditezza
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:30 pm
Location: Culture City

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Arditezza »

Modern Social Theory teaches us that we should strive to be anything we want to be, because the individual is more important than the society.

I believe that this is the reason for the deep depression that some people feel in their lives because their dreams of what they want to be, and the limitations of their own bodies and minds have a deep and widening gap between each other. It is a scientific fact that women are smaller and less strong physically than men. We can argue of course that women can build the muscles needed to do certain tasks just as well as men, but the fact remains that their bones, joints and cartilage will wear out faster and they will be more prone to injury than their male counterparts.

In these times, we are taught to ignore our instincts and the signals the body sends us and plod forward to the dreams that are unattainable or not a good fit for our own strengths and limitations. People who become mathematicians, but who's mind kept telling them they weren't good enough or kept making mistakes can alter things for the entire society that further lead to erosion. Consider the gentleman who designed an algorithm that was supposed to predict the stock market. He knew it had flaws, and he knew that he didn't have it right but he pushed it anyway because he was a mathematician and his pride in reaching that dream, however misguided it might have been, was more important that then society it would harm.

I have had three major careers in my life, none of which were satisfying until I got involved in this one. I trusted my instinct and went with the career that made me feel successful. One that made me feel like I was serving my society and doing something good. I have never woke up with any doubt in my mind that I have found the right path for myself and my strengths and limitations.

Sociology will teach us that we are all equal and can all be whatever we want, but this does a serious disservice to the individual because it allows him to believe that he is more important than the society as a whole and he will make more mistakes in a job he isn't suited for. He will have less pride, he will find more depression and his entire life will feel less fulfilled because he will never feel as successful as he could if he just realized his limitations and strengths and found potential in a job he was more suited for.

We judge success on making the most money and having the most things. But true happiness of the individual comes with finding the right place where you can satisfy the needs of your ego and follow your instinct.

To the OP; You feel good about them protecting you because it's instinctual to feel that protection and safety are good. If something happened to you because you didn't believe you had the limitations you do, and you got injured, it would mean that your entire team would suffer. They would feel bad that they didn't protect you, they would be without your leadership and guidance, and they would know that you were suffering. They do it on instinct, and that instinct shouldn't be ignored.
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Kayla »

i think you are confusing modern social theory with hollywood

the movies do in fact often have this message that it does not matter if you suck at something, as long as you try your hardest and there is a montage scene, you will succeed.
User avatar
Arditezza
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:30 pm
Location: Culture City

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Arditezza »

I think that if you study modern sociology and popular psychology, many "modern" thinkers believe in the blank slate. That every single person on the planet has the exact same potential given the right opportunities and the right influences.

Hollywood embraces the idea, sure. It makes for good cinema for everyone to be able to win, even when they break the rules. But it's outside of that, it's bigger than that. We have a whole generation of kids coming into the workforce right now that believe that they can be CEO if they just work hard enough. They weren't told of their mistakes and their shortcomings. They weren't raised with red pen, instead they were given participation ribbons and honorable mentions when they failed. They believe that mediocre is still good enough and weren't encouraged to take pride in who they were as an individual and how that can help society as a whole. A happier individual, makes a happier community.

In this same way, we are taught to ignore our gender instincts as well, to the detriment of not only our bodies but our minds as well. Our chemical makeup has, over thousands of generations, altered our skills and instincts to create the best human available right now. Some scientists argue that we are headed to a genderless future, but the implications of that could be really harmful.

We should trust what the chemicals in our bodies are telling us instead of ignoring them and causing bigger issues. There is a correlation with older men and women having children with more birth defects, complications and a much higher rate of autism than their younger selves. Had they listened to their bodies and had children when they were younger instead of putting their career first, not only would they most probably had children with less physical issues, a stronger and smarter specimen, they would have themselves felt fulfilled and not had to take care of a weak adult late into their older years.

What I am saying is that we are being taught to ignore our instincts, and that is doing more harm to the individual than people realize. When we feel failure, we try something else. When we feel protective of someone else, there is an instinctual reason for it. When we feel compassion, fear, anger, joy, lust... there are reasons that are bigger than social theory and popular culture and we should give those instincts consideration for the betterment of society.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Obvious Leo »

Nicely put. In many ways we've outsmarted ourselves by forgetting that first and foremost we are upright primates interwoven into an an entire biosphere of staggering complexity. We cannot force nature to conform to our self-definitions by brute force.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Scott Mayers »

Arditezza wrote:I think that if you study modern sociology and popular psychology, many "modern" thinkers believe in the blank slate. That every single person on the planet has the exact same potential given the right opportunities and the right influences.

Hollywood embraces the idea, sure. It makes for good cinema for everyone to be able to win, even when they break the rules. But it's outside of that, it's bigger than that. We have a whole generation of kids coming into the workforce right now that believe that they can be CEO if they just work hard enough. They weren't told of their mistakes and their shortcomings. They weren't raised with red pen, instead they were given participation ribbons and honorable mentions when they failed. They believe that mediocre is still good enough and weren't encouraged to take pride in who they were as an individual and how that can help society as a whole. A happier individual, makes a happier community.

In this same way, we are taught to ignore our gender instincts as well, to the detriment of not only our bodies but our minds as well. Our chemical makeup has, over thousands of generations, altered our skills and instincts to create the best human available right now. Some scientists argue that we are headed to a genderless future, but the implications of that could be really harmful.

We should trust what the chemicals in our bodies are telling us instead of ignoring them and causing bigger issues. There is a correlation with older men and women having children with more birth defects, complications and a much higher rate of autism than their younger selves. Had they listened to their bodies and had children when they were younger instead of putting their career first, not only would they most probably had children with less physical issues, a stronger and smarter specimen, they would have themselves felt fulfilled and not had to take care of a weak adult late into their older years.

What I am saying is that we are being taught to ignore our instincts, and that is doing more harm to the individual than people realize. When we feel failure, we try something else. When we feel protective of someone else, there is an instinctual reason for it. When we feel compassion, fear, anger, joy, lust... there are reasons that are bigger than social theory and popular culture and we should give those instincts consideration for the betterment of society.
I noticed that you mentioned the point about opting to have children when younger as if such options are equivalent for everyone. What is the case, though is that some people have a more weighted likelihood to be able to apply their power to choose over others. It takes two people to be in a relationship (or more!) and so it is less likely that all people in society can have the same identical privilege respecting 'instinct' alone.

Treating people equally 'fair' to all potentials at least allows people who lack the same genetic (or any inherent fortune of environment) to have hope and encourage them to open their horizons to attend realistically to other things they CAN succeed in. For instance, if we encourage the conservative view to maintain the normal state of treating each other different based on our genetic/inherent natures, like expecting women to be the nurturing and perpetual 'girls' by instinct, this is alright for those women who can succeed by being so. But for those who lack this advantage, the realistic thing for them to be able to succeed in any way is to encourage them to seek other options. But since the traditional instinctive cultural view is the default, those women would be disrespected should they actually try options that are outside of of the range what society thinks women are suited for. So they would lose for 'being the woman accepted by society' for not getting rewarded naturally, AND would lose for 'trying to do something alternatively when society doesn't accept those differences'.

So it is best to encourage everyone as being equal (even if they aren't) in their capacity to be or do whatever each human CAN do as individuals. Not all women are petite and popularly appealing by their looks. But in a society that encourages the conservative views, they may actively discriminate against the whole class of women to be allowed to say, do some traditional male occupation that requires physical strength. Yet this example woman may actually be just as equally qualified to do such a job. But without an accepting society to think of men and women as independently qualified, she'll be discouraged from even trying to take on this job. She cannot change who she is genetically, but society CAN change how we treat each other. And in time, society as a whole will evolve to find future women of these contemporary disdaining qualifiers as equally favorable for being non-petite as well as the attractive. Only the initial ones challenging these stereotypes are the ones taking the greatest sacrifice here.
User avatar
Arditezza
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:30 pm
Location: Culture City

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Arditezza »

In no way am I saying that women should stay home barefoot and pregnant at all, or that all women should be mothers. There are some women who have no instinct to have children, and they should not be encouraged to do so because if the instinct is not there, they will not be good, attentive, caring mothers as mothers should be. Just as there are men who have no instinct to have children. All people are equal, but not all people have the same potential because of their genetic makeup. They might not be as fast, or as good at math, or as creative, or as able to interact with people on a level that is good for sales... they should not be encouraged to continue to try excelling in an area that does not fit their abilities because it just brings about misery for them in the long run. They will not feel confident, and they will eventually feel like they have not contributed much because what they did contribute was mediocre.

We would like to say that all people have the opportunity and the ability to do whatever they put their mind to, and focus in. But not all people are born with the same abilities because of differences in body, mind and instinct. We should not encourage people to fail, or to ignore their instincts, or push through the pain they feel doing something their bodies were not born to do. Pain is an indicator of damage to joint, muscle, bone or cartilage and yet we encourage people who are small and not fit for jobs as say... a bricklayer even though we know they are not as efficient, not as balanced, not as good at bricklaying just because we do not want to hurt their feelings. But you will have buildings that are not as well built, and a body that wears out faster than people more fit for the job, when there were other choices. What I am saying is that when a person fails, or doesn't do something well, the more compassionate thing is to encourage them to find something else they are good at, not to push them to go against the signs their body tells them all along. When people do find their passion and something they are good at, they become better employees and better humans as a whole because they aren't stuck being mediocre just for the sake of being "equal" to everyone else.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: paternalistic men

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arditezza wrote:In no way am I saying that women should stay home barefoot and pregnant at all, or that all women should be mothers. There are some women who have no instinct to have children, and they should not be encouraged to do so because if the instinct is not there, they will not be good, attentive, caring mothers as mothers should be. Just as there are men who have no instinct to have children. All people are equal, but not all people have the same potential because of their genetic makeup. They might not be as fast, or as good at math, or as creative, or as able to interact with people on a level that is good for sales... they should not be encouraged to continue to try excelling in an area that does not fit their abilities because it just brings about misery for them in the long run. They will not feel confident, and they will eventually feel like they have not contributed much because what they did contribute was mediocre.

We would like to say that all people have the opportunity and the ability to do whatever they put their mind to, and focus in. But not all people are born with the same abilities because of differences in body, mind and instinct. We should not encourage people to fail, or to ignore their instincts, or push through the pain they feel doing something their bodies were not born to do. Pain is an indicator of damage to joint, muscle, bone or cartilage and yet we encourage people who are small and not fit for jobs as say... a bricklayer even though we know they are not as efficient, not as balanced, not as good at bricklaying just because we do not want to hurt their feelings. But you will have buildings that are not as well built, and a body that wears out faster than people more fit for the job, when there were other choices. What I am saying is that when a person fails, or doesn't do something well, the more compassionate thing is to encourage them to find something else they are good at, not to push them to go against the signs their body tells them all along. When people do find their passion and something they are good at, they become better employees and better humans as a whole because they aren't stuck being mediocre just for the sake of being "equal" to everyone else.
I enjoyed this thoughtful post. It's all true of course, but the politically correct would hate it.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Scott Mayers »

I'm not against pulling back the reigns on how many people often baby their children to an absurd degree nowadays. Over-pampering can cause harm where one all of a sudden has to face a real world alone when they are not prepared. I believe though that you are oversimplifying how to behave whole-scale to return to the opposite which isn't any better either. Both extremes are bad and so we need to deal with each other with more specificity. You sound like you're arguing for a longing for the day when we gave good ole fashion beatings to keep people in line.

While it may be bad to be over attentive to all issues, we have to take care not to go to either extremes. Nature rules over all other factors. As such, any defense to return to it is ALSO only "pampering" to those who already get ahead naturally most of the time anyways. Some people are always going to be spoiled no matter what. However, if we are to be a functioning intelligent society, we need to progress beyond our nature as cave people. ....or at least try.

If I had to see a choice between two cases where one parent acts strictly conservative and tough on an average fortunate person, I'd prefer allowing the kind of abuses or constructive behaviors that inevitably occur when people are more provisional than overtly pushy and more volatile. Nature favors the more direct forms of abuse by default and so needs no concern to defend. We just need to know to what degree of the less natural but soft forms of treatments towards others could cause trouble.

I'm already agreeing with you guys to many things and often argue for the same concerns. But I don't believe in abandoning acceptance of others' unconditionally. The conflicts we have in society are always due to more to a stronger stance by those imposing their power through natural instinct AND their fortune of genetic dominance. Only the vulnerable lose exponentially in your worldview.
User avatar
Arditezza
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:30 pm
Location: Culture City

Re: paternalistic men

Post by Arditezza »

Do you consider treating everyone as having equal possibility a compassionate position?

I by no means ever said that I condoned beatings, or want to roll back time. I simply want people to be aware of their talents and their weaknesses, according to their capacity of body and mind. I want them to celebrate and focus on their talents and not be encouraged or awarded for being mediocre or attempting to gloss over weakness in order to make someone "feel" better. The whole problem with entitlement is that people are being taught that they can reach any height, and should not have to listen to anyone or see any of their weaknesses as roadblocks. This leads to many problems down the line not only for the individual but for society because you will have people in positions they are not fit for, and have a significant weakness in. People should be taught to trust in their instincts to move away from things that they are not fit to do, and listen to the pain in their mind and body when they find something they do not do well.

I accept all others unconditionally, but for their own sakes they should be shown both their talents and their weakness so that they can find a path that leads them to success, happiness and fulfillment. Teaching people they can be anything sets up them to fall and eventually society to fall.
Post Reply