On the topic of sexism.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:26pm
Thread Topic: On the topic of sexism.
-
Look at nature, just as sexist if not more sexist then humans.
Males are generally bigger, and they each have a seperate place in society. For ducks, the female duck lays eggs, sits on them, and is brought food by the male.
For lions., the female hunts, and the men are all territorial and are not much more then sperm.
Not saying either gender is supreme, but each has it's own place.
I am probaly wrong slightly with the examples so somebody be a smartass and fix dem please. -
Yes, in nature each has its own place. That would be the same for humans if we were dim witted Neanderthals that couldn't change our society. Humans are much more advanced than other animals.
-
So you're suggesting that we must be like animals?
-
I think we're a little beyond the animals at this point.
-
This is a topic I've been discussing for a while. First of all, we have technological advances. We don't need dumb gender roles anymore. The "idea" behind male and female in mammals was in case of something like a predator attack, the female could get away with the offspring (or power to reproduce) while the male held off the predator, and the genes were passed on. But I see no danger of tiger attack here, and even if there were, we have plenty of things besides petty roles to help us take care of it.
Second, in the political perspective, I see oppression as being tied to these gender roles. In very old days, before imperialism was really a thing and capitalism was popular, there were the aforementioned roles, but they were "separate but equal." Then, we as a species decided, "Hey! Let's go take things from the next tribe." And it was mostly males sent over because of potential danger.
When imperialistic culture was set into our society, it became associated with glory, and so did masculinity. Women began to be seen as "those weak people who stay at home." Childrearing became increasingly tied to women's oppression.
Later, property rights were a major thing, and since men were seen as "superior" they became the inheritors. That solidified it. Men required sons to transmit their wealth. The family structure became what it was because of wealth and property lines. At some point, women were also seen as property and how that ties into property law is obvious.
Basically, you can tie women's oppression to imperialism, capitalism, wealth and property law.
It will be when we get rid of such things that women will be truly liberated. -
you know, from my perspective, you guys are all on the right track, but I want to point out that correlating sexism to natural morphology and social gender roles just doesn't work.
The main reason being that sexism is characterized emotional, or idealistic actions, where as nature works in a vacuum. -
That's how the world works, dude. Get over it. -_-
(I'm referring to the original post; I didn't read any of the replies)
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
