C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 In the army, the sergeants yell "PUSSIES!" at their recruits. Why? First of all, it implies you're soft and squishy, and that you're willing to get a penis inserted (showing homophobic tendencies here). But most of all, it means you're feminine. You're a part of a womans body, which implies you're actually less than a woman. A woman is above you in status, and that is supposed to be a bad thing. Well, I can understand that the army needs to instill a deep sense of masculinity in their soldiers in order for them to be effective on the battlefield (I'll gladly debate this if anyone wants to) - but the problem - do they "reprogram" them afterwards? My suspicion is that the people who have been in army have through their training got the idea that they're now above females, and that feminity is to be avoided. Why is it that men still hold their superior status compared to women? I can understand that in ancient societies, men did the protecting of the tribe and all that, but do modern societies really need men this much? Research has shown that women are much better at communicating, and they're much more stable health wise. With genetic engineering, our society could actually survive completely without males at all. Just rantin'. - Jais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Research has shown that men are better at scientific and mathematical pursuits than women, on average. Then again, I say that that's because they, on average, care less about their surroundings (if you can sit down and read a book while the baby is crying, then you may very well make a great phycisist, but you'll make a lousy father). While I firmly believe in equal rights to all regardless of gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, ect., it would be plain stupid to ignore the obvious differences between the genders. For the answer to your question: Old habits die hard. At least that's what I think. But it is actually paradoxial that men have had so much more status than women: Only the men are expendable. You need a very small population of males in order to survive as a tribe/species. But I guess that is why the men were sent to do the dangerous stuff, which does bring a certain status. So perhaps there is no paradox after all... Oh, and another possible reason: The Bible (yeah, I like to shoot at it). It's gender-biased, all the way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar The Bible (yeah, I like to shoot at it) So I've noticed Watch it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 well, that has yet to come my terrain, but i sort of understand what you mean. i don't think we will ever get rid of that, i mean, the fact (not a real fact, but all parents teach it children like a fact) that man need to care for their wive, and therefore need to be superior. i'm not saying i agree with that, i think that shadowtemplar is right, we should do what whe are good at, if man are better at maths, let them do the maths;) (same counts for females)(exept they don't have to understands maps or maths:p ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Oh, and another possible reason: The Bible (yeah, I like to shoot at it). It's gender-biased, all the way through. Yes I have observed that you do like to do that. Explain what you mean about the Bible being gender-biased. There are women in the army to, some of them even have the power to yell "*****" at the recruits. Yes it is sad but I must agree with you that men, or lots of them, still maintain a sense of superority over women. I firmly believe in equality of all genders, races etc. like Shadow. My cousin is in his senior at West Point (a military college) and he said that in his freshmen year, they were treated HORRIBLY by the upperclassmen and officers. They do this to get you prepared for the most dire of situations and to learn to control yourself under pressure but I don't believe it to be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by kstar__2 i think that shadowtemplar is right, we should do what whe are good at, if man are better at maths, let them do the maths;) (same counts for females)(exept they don't have to understands maps or maths:p ) I must protest. I did not say what people of what gender should do, only that there is a small difference in the average skills in certain areas, and that there is a small difference in average physical capabilities. Those are the facts. I didn't say anymore than that. Period. AND: "Average" doesn't mean "every". There is a spread around this average value. Also: In my experience math, mapreading, physics, ect. broadens the mind enormously, and, therefore, everyone should aquire at least basic grasp of them. Explain what you mean about the Bible being gender-biased. Eve is tempted by the snake. All the prophets are men. God is described as a "He"-character (it would seem strange that an omnipotent God is bound by mere gender, so He (or rather: It) must favor men). If you want a full list, watch Dogma. And remember: "God has humor: Just look at the Platypus." - Dogma They do this to get you prepared for the most dire of situations and to learn to control yourself under pressure but I don't believe it to be right. "At times what is right must be sacrificed on the alter of victory." - Imperial proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 It depends on your view. Most english translations contain many slams against women, but if you read a bible that shows alternate translations through greek AND hebrew, you'll find that some of the passages might have not actually been against women, they just became translated that way. There's some bible by Joyce Meier that's got all that. However, it misses that 'hell' can also be translated as 'grave', which makes me suspicious at times. The damage, however, has already been done, so I guess it's a moot point. Going on Dogma, though, don't forget that "God" could be a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by mercatfat However, it misses that 'hell' can also be translated as 'grave', which makes me suspicious at times. LOL. I didn't know that... *mentalnoterememberthathellcanalsobetranslatedasgravementalnote* Originally posted by mercatfat The damage, however, has already been done, so I guess it's a moot point. Well, knowledge is always desireable IMO. Thanks. Originally posted by mercatfat Going on Dogma, though, don't forget that "God" could be a woman. Aah, someone has watched the heretical unfold... But, in the end, Rufus (the Thirteenth Apostle) says that God "isn't really one way or the other", or something to that effect. But an omnipotent deity would not have to bother with being one or the other... Then again, omnipotence runs you into several paradoxes... But all of this is really off-topic, and C'Jais already has a Flak-Cannon pointed my way tonight, so I think that we should end this here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar and C'Jais already has a Flak-Cannon pointed my way tonight, so I think that we should end this here... As I know you love to debate religious matters, why not just create a thread of your own about it? ...instead of invading the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Since religion has invaded this thread, I'll kick off my entrance here by clarifying/agreeing about a couple things. Then, I shall torment Cjais here no longer Eve is tempted by the snake. Because the serpent knew that Adam would listen to her, killing two birds with one stone. If he had tempted Adam, would Eve have been stupid enough to follow suit with him? Probably not. But Adam, like most men, was blinded and fell because of love. It's really very logical. All the prophets are men. First of all, what a surprise in the male dominated world of "Then" - who would men listen to, other men or "lowly" women? Second of all, you're wrong; the woman Deborah was a major prophet. (You'll notice I didn't say "prophetess"; the distinction between male and female does not exist in the Bible's original languages) And the leader of Israel, Barak, just happened to be the sort of guy who has serious self-confidence issues - he was a coward, and more importantly he was open to listen to Deborah (unlike, most likely, all the other men who ruled Israel!) He still had prejudice problems, though - Deborah told him that for being a coward, he wouldn't get to slay the leader of the enemy, nor would any of his soldiers get that glory - a woman would. And a woman did. God is described as a "He"-character (it would seem strange that an omnipotent God is bound by mere gender, so He (or rather: It) must favor men). God originally created man, so he/it would have already been referring to himself/itself by the male gender a while before Eve was created. If I were God, I would think of Eve as simply a different shade of male. But you don't say "cerulean blue" you say "blue". And again, we have the fact that society as a whole has always favored men over women. If God appeared as a woman, well...they wouldn't take God seriously! It's only our society that is correcting this now, and it's taken thousands and thousands of years to get this far. Add to that that Jesus was male; thus we can properly refer to God as "He". Lastly, I should point out that women had much more freedom in Israeli society than any other society at that time. Before you say "Oh, that's not good enough" remember that the people of those days would have never accepted a change as drastic as the one we're talking about. It depends on your view. Most english translations contain many slams against women, but if you read a bible that shows alternate translations through greek AND hebrew, you'll find that some of the passages might have not actually been against women, they just became translated that way. Very true. I haven't read that version of the Bible (I'm surprised to hear one has been published...I can't find anything of the sort here) but I'd be interested to know, did they correct the translation of certain passages on homosexuals, and certain passages on witches? Okay. Now that I've said all that... *runs from Cjais' flak cannon* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khier Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 yes the bible makes a lot of what we would call nowadays racial, sexist, prejudice, what have you, comments.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well on the subject of pussies I am an expert. I think alot of military instructors use these terms to break down the ego. (good thing) There is little more humiliating for a young man who is still not sure of his masculinity than to be referred to as something female. It doesn't mean women are weak you know, the ***** should be protected , pampered and cared for.(its the true seat of power). And that is something that a young man (or woman) who is trying to become independant and responsible does not want to be thought of as. I am an X Marine, and I can tell you most of the Marines I know are not misogonist. In fact just the opposite, most are full of protection & rescue fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by griff38 I am an X Marine, and I can tell you most of the Marines I know are not misogonist. In fact just the opposite, most are full of protection & rescue fantasies. That's true, some people who have never been in the army are some of the most hyper-masculine creatures out there, while you can see some real gentlemen among former special forces. Question is, do women nowadays need such rescue and protection? Isn't it holding on to century old stereotypes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 You know what I hate? Womanists. Because womanists aren't saying that all sexes are equal, which they are, they say that women are superior to men in every way. Which is just rediculous, because they're doing what men used to do to them and they hated that.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais That's true, some people who have never been in the army are some of the most hyper-masculine creatures out there, while you can see some real gentlemen among former special forces. Question is, do women nowadays need such rescue and protection? Isn't it holding on to century old stereotypes? None that I know do , and yes it's an old stereotype, that may be 1 of the reasons there are so many confused frustrated dudes out there, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 From what my girlfriend's brother's Air Force recruiter told him, the military basic training leaders and drill sgts are no longer allowed to yell/touch/abuse the recruits in ANY way. This was brought on after years of films of boot camps being released into the public eye where people got the gist of what happens in the basic training and boot camps. Sure the sgts can get right up in your face to the point where you can tell what deoderant they are wearing/not wearing, but they cannot touch you on any part of your body. And even though the stereotype may be old and out-of-date, the fact remains is that men naturally develop 40% more of muscle than that of women. Sure with proper training, weightlifting and exercise a woman could be just as buff, but studies have shown that men will develop muscle faster for some biological/evolutionary reason. What the statistic doesn't say is that men also develop more fat than women;) D'oh! ( larger percentage of men (25.9%) than women (22.3%) are overweight.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by Andy867 And even though the stereotype may be old and out-of-date, the fact remains is that men naturally develop 40% more of muscle than that of women. Sure with proper training, weightlifting and exercise a woman could be just as buff, but studies have shown that men will develop muscle faster for some biological/evolutionary reason. "For some evolutionary reason"? It's quite simple: Men were the protectors and hunters in ancient societies. Later they had no enemies in the animal kingdom, and so they started to wage war on each other instead. Which is where men put their muscle to good use by becoming soldiers. All in all, it's quite logical - but do men have such a need for superior muscle today? What the statistic doesn't say is that men also develop more fat than women;) D'oh! ( larger percentage of men (25.9%) than women (22.3%) are overweight.) But women have more fat on their bodies than men. Which gives them a head start in the event that they should turn overweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.