(January 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(January 24, 2020 at 2:57 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I wouldn't put it like that. In all of antiquity even outside Islam, girls and women were seen more like property than equals. Sure it was to prevent rape, but more so that your property doesn't get damaged. 

Even in America females were blamed for their own rapes and women just hundred years ago were expected to dress a certain way too, even if not covering up their heads.

Body autonomy for women has been a recent progress in the west. While I would never suggest banning the hijab, I would argue what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has, being a former Muslim herself. I would argue that while Muslim women in the west have the freedom to wear it, that is not the case in much of the Middle East, it is mandatory, and the woman can be punished or even beaten for not wearing it. It is gender role clothing, just like LDS and Amish and it is patriarchal in meaning.

There are differences between men and women biologically; and it was even proven scientifically that many hormones in a man's body are absent or lacking in a female's and vise versa.

Men are not equal to women at least biologically; we didn't even go to the effects of different hormones on the brain. Saying both are equal is a very loose and ambiguous claim. Ignoring this fact brings issues to the society, and maybe the shocking numbers of divorce in the U.S and Europe is an evidence to that; it's very wrong to insist on calling "oranges" "apples". They are equal though in terms of rights.

Women are not the same being as men, we can start at the evolutionary roles that both did based on the nature of their bodies -men hunt; women raise kids-, archeology proves too how ancient people knew these roles based on the de-facto capabilities they are born with.

I think and believe that nothing is wrong with women, but everything is wrong with the male-culture that enforces its image on women, forcing them to satisfy the male mind at all times -like making them dress as sluts to enjoy looking at them-.

(January 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Women are not the same being as men, we can start at the evolutionary roles that both did based on the nature of their bodies -men hunt; women raise kids-, archeology proves too how ancient people knew these roles based on the de-facto capabilities they are born with.

Quote:Anthropologists have typically assumed that in Paleolithic societies, women were responsible for gathering wild plants and firewood, and men were responsible for hunting and scavenging dead animals.[3][38] However, analogies to existent hunter-gatherer societies such as the Hadza people and the Aboriginal Australians suggest that the sexual division of labor in the Paleolithic was relatively flexible. Men may have participated in gathering plants, firewood and insects, and women may have procured small game animals for consumption and assisted men in driving herds of large game animals (such as woolly mammoths and deer) off cliffs.[38][55] Additionally, recent research by anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona is argued to support that this division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and was invented relatively recently in human pre-history.[62][63] Sexual division of labor may have been developed to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[63] Possibly there was approximate parity between men and women during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and that period may have been the most gender-equal time in human history.[54][64][65] Archaeological evidence from art and funerary rituals indicates that a number of individual women enjoyed seemingly high status in their communities, and it is likely that both sexes participated in decision making.[65] The earliest known Paleolithic shaman (c. 30,000 BP) was female.[66] Jared Diamond suggests that the status of women declined with the adoption of agriculture because women in farming societies typically have more pregnancies and are expected to do more demanding work than women in hunter-gatherer societies.[67] Like most contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, Paleolithic and the Mesolithic groups probably followed mostly matrilineal and ambilineal descent patterns; patrilineal descent patterns were probably rarer than in the Neolithic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

(January 25, 2020 at 1:46 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(January 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Women are not the same being as men, we can start at the evolutionary roles that both did based on the nature of their bodies -men hunt; women raise kids-, archeology proves too how ancient people knew these roles based on the de-facto capabilities they are born with.

That's not true. Back in paleolithic women also hunted with men while some men stayed at home, as is even the case in some primitive tribes alive today.


For instance here's from wikipedia

Quote:Anthropologists have typically assumed that in Paleolithic societies, women were responsible for gathering wild plants and firewood, and men were responsible for hunting and scavenging dead animals.[3][38] However, analogies to existent hunter-gatherer societies such as the Hadza people and the Aboriginal Australians suggest that the sexual division of labor in the Paleolithic was relatively flexible. Men may have participated in gathering plants, firewood and insects, and women may have procured small game animals for consumption and assisted men in driving herds of large game animals (such as woolly mammoths and deer) off cliffs.[38][55] Additionally, recent research by anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona is argued to support that this division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and was invented relatively recently in human pre-history.[62][63] Sexual division of labor may have been developed to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[63] Possibly there was approximate parity between men and women during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and that period may have been the most gender-equal time in human history.[54][64][65] Archaeological evidence from art and funerary rituals indicates that a number of individual women enjoyed seemingly high status in their communities, and it is likely that both sexes participated in decision making.[65] The earliest known Paleolithic shaman (c. 30,000 BP) was female.[66] Jared Diamond suggests that the status of women declined with the adoption of agriculture because women in farming societies typically have more pregnancies and are expected to do more demanding work than women in hunter-gatherer societies.[67] Like most contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, Paleolithic and the Mesolithic groups probably followed mostly matrilineal and ambilineal descent patterns; patrilineal descent patterns were probably rarer than in the Neolithic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

(January 25, 2020 at 3:15 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: 2) You see the word "existent"; right? I thought we were speaking about long long ages ago; not existing societies -even if isolated-.

(January 25, 2020 at 3:53 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(January 25, 2020 at 3:15 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: 2) You see the word "existent"; right? I thought we were speaking about long long ages ago; not existing societies -even if isolated-.

Pay attention to what sentence before that says, let me help you: "that this division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and was invented relatively recently in human pre-history."

Quote:Anthropologists have typically assumed that in Paleolithic societies, women were responsible for gathering wild plants and firewood, and men were responsible for hunting and scavenging dead animals.[3][38] However, analogies to existent hunter-gatherer societies such as the Hadza people and the Aboriginal Australians suggest that the sexual division of labor in the Paleolithic was relatively flexible

(January 24, 2020 at 9:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: These days trans and gender fluid people are asking us to look again at what we used to call biological differences. The whole thing may not be as simple as we thought. 

Nor am I convinced that gender roles in certain hunter/gatherer societies were as hard and fast as we might think. And even if they were, we're not hunter/gatherers any more. People are adaptable. 

The main thing is that we not reify tradition or habit and declare it to be pre-determined. It's nomos, not physis. Things change, and that's OK. 

Quote:

Quote:I think and believe that nothing is wrong with women, but everything is wrong with the male-culture that enforces its image on women, forcing them to satisfy the male mind at all times -like making them dress as sluts to enjoy looking at them-.

This I think is very relevant. Social pressure on women is very strong. 

I know it's not either/or, but sometimes you see side-by-side photos of women in which people claim liberation has occured: on one side they are wearing hijabs, and on the other side mini-skirts. Yet both choices may have been determined by others. Give up your hijab and wear this designer outfit. Liberate yourself from tradition so you can participate in the fashion which the media tell you is the only attractive thing. 

If we say that someone is free because she dresses just like an American, that may be too simple. There are also pressures to dress like Americans that are, in their own ways, difficult to avoid. 

I think it is probably easier, in one's own mind, to flout dress codes that are imposed from above, and harder to ignore dress codes imposed by one's peers. I used to live in a little Japanese rural village where the high school had a strict dress code. The boys' solutions to this were hilarious. For example, they would sew purple silk linings into their pockets that weren't visible during the day, but on the train ride home the would pull the pockets inside out to show their disobedience. It was a lovely decadent touch. When I lived in Spanish Harlem I used to see Catholic high school girls getting on the subway and rolling up the tops of their skirts, to make them much shorter. 

This is in contrast to the high school I went to. We had no official dress code, but we all dressed exactly alike, and this was enforced by peer pressure. Ill-fitting jeans, or the wrong brand, brought mockery all day long.

(January 25, 2020 at 4:17 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Flexibility in gender roles is a modern thing; I spoke about "very early societies -Lower Paleolithic-", not about " what modern isolated societies suggest".

Hunter-gatherer societies had very fixed gender roles, while modern society doesn't.


Are you sure you understand what I say?
And please; quote my full comment and reply to it like a respectful human being, and don't troll like a child or worse.