(February 24, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Hi John, checking in to see if you found that subservience gene, or a way in which evolution makes shit happen. Can't be bothered to read between my last post and this one, just link it if it's materialized.

You mentioned my main point yourself. Evolution resulted in men being bigger and stronger than women, and men used that strength to keep women subservient. Waiting a day or two then pretending it didn't happen is pretty lame, even for you.

---

(February 24, 2013 at 5:00 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: So yeah JohnV forgive me I thought you were answering yes to the misogynist question as you were a little vague. "you say misogyny, I say realist." I thought you were saying misogyny is realism.
Correct me if that's actually what you believe, but I had pegged you as a level headed guy after the other thread I encountered you in, so this thread threw me through a loop. Are you aware that if you're being sarcastic you need to note so with an emoticon or something? Otherwise your assertion will be taken at face value?

Yes, there's frequently some misunderstandings in this format. To clarify, I say that recognizing differences between the sexes is realism. But, while I see women's roles as different than those of men, I don't see those roles as inferior, so I disagree on misogyny.

Quote:Please explain what you feel the woman's "place" is in relation to her husband? And how do you balance that with what the bible claims she should be?

1. If she wanted to be a preacher, would you be by her side in that endeavor?

No.

Quote:2. Is she your advisor yet you're the final word on the matter?

Yes.

Quote:3. Do you really think women's place is in the kitchen or making babies? (you didn't answer me directly on that one, either)

Actually I'm the better cook, but she's catching up. As for babies, well, yeah, unless you want the race to die out.

Quote:4. If she ran for congress would you have any objections?

Yes, seems like it would be a big waste of time as she's never held office of any kind.

Quote:5. If she bought land would you feel she was out of her realm?

No. You're showing your ignorance of the Bible with that one:
Prov 31
16 She considers a field and buys it;
From her profits she plants a vineyard.

Quote:6. Do you hold scorn for women in general for man's Fall?

No. The Bible holds Adam responsible, so why would I?

Quote:7. Do you feel women are inept and require men to keep them on the right path?

No.

Quote:8. Do you believe that if she divorced you she's going to hell?

No.

Quote:9. Do you agree or disagree with the bible regarding these claims? And if so how does that translate to your marriage?

Bible Wrote:"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

I agree with them. So does my wife. How does it translate to our marriage? As said above, I have the final say, that's all.

Those verses don't bother my wife. You know what does?

Matt 22
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[b] in heaven.

She adores me so much she's actually a little apprehensive regarding heaven, because she can't imagine life without me. Pretty sweet.

---

(February 24, 2013 at 4:12 pm)Cinjin Wrote: You're shitting me right!?! Tell me that you're just messing with me now ???

I've been messing with you the whole time. Duh.

---

(February 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm)John V Wrote:

(February 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Before I forget, and before this round of LOL starts, whoever is trying to justify this same tired bullshit on the grounds of "god"

The argument is DOA on the basis of bare and deplorably infantile potential arguments. Your silly little god myth doesn't have the juice to make your womenfolk bow before you anymore. To be honest I doubt that it ever did, or we would be at a loss as to explain precisely why the judicious and regular application of a closed fist was required. Get a grip.

So why don't the women hit back?

Oh yeah, they evolved to be smaller and weaker than men, so they can't.

^^ Reminder since you'll probably feign ignorance.

(February 24, 2013 at 8:23 pm)John V Wrote: You mentioned my main point yourself. Evolution resulted in men being bigger and stronger than women, and men used that strength to keep women subservient. Waiting a day or two then pretending it didn't happen is pretty lame, even for you.

Your explanation of how men keep women subservient is amusing, but still not support for your claim. High pressure and a variety of other factors are involved in the formation of fossil fuels. Man leverages those fossil fuels and one side effect is pollution and contamination. Does this make high pressure responsible for pollution and contamination, did high pressure make that happen? Hardly.

It isn't the size of the fist in any case, but it's proper application that counts. The few can oppress the many. The smaller person can subdue the larger one. Not that there has been some massive size difference between the sexes for the majority of our history either - and of course we still have the problem of cultures with average sized men and average sized women in which they do not hold a position of subservience. Take the time to learn the shit you choose to prattle on about.

You have no point, let alone a main one. I guess I'll just wait and check back in a few more days.

(feigning ignorance btw, isn't my schtick. To be honest, I'd rather that someone feigned ignorance than displayed actual ignorance.....)

@Stimbo:

(February 24, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Cinjin Wrote: I've gotten pretty accustomed to it.


Although admittedly, it is a nuisance when an erection sneaks up on you in a public setting.

Damn thing won't let me sleep @_@

---

But if I'm honest about the part of it which annoys me the most: it's the changes to my face. Holy shit you lose progress fast...

(February 25, 2013 at 1:18 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 24, 2013 at 8:23 pm)John V Wrote: You mentioned my main point yourself. Evolution resulted in men being bigger and stronger than women, and men used that strength to keep women subservient. Waiting a day or two then pretending it didn't happen is pretty lame, even for you.

Your explanation of how men keep women subservient is amusing,

It was included in your explanation as well, and no, physical abuse isn't amusing.

Quote:but still not support for your claim.

How so? You've agreed that men have historically used physical violence to oppress women. Do you dispute that evolution is capable of producing sexual dimorphism?

---

Quote:It isn't the size of the fist in any case, but it's proper application that counts. The few can oppress the many. The smaller person can subdue the larger one. Not that there has been some massive size difference between the sexes for the majority of our history either - and of course we still have the problem of cultures with average sized men and average sized women in which they do not hold a position of subservience. Take the time to learn the shit you choose to prattle on about.

Sorry, but size and strength count. I take my daughters to taekwondo classes every week. A female black belt frequently says to the women and children, "I hate to admit it, but size counts." That's why they have weight classes in boxing and wrestling. Duh. It's amazing that you've backed yourself into this argument and don't drop it.

I have historically used toilet paper to wipe my ass. Sexual dimorphism is not synonymous with oppression, so why there would be any need to deny such a thing is a mystery.

Your notion of the big manly man and the little girly girl exists only in your head. The difference between males and females is - here in the US, at a point where there -is- a noticeable difference ; 4% in height, and 8% in body mass on average. Size still doesn't matter (and looking at the above, it's easy to see why), but I appreciate the attempt to say that "women said this, women said that", like the phantom black or gay friend in a discussion about civil rights - it was bound to happen...and I'm glad that we've got that out of the way. When your daughters martial arts instructor becomes an expert on evolution or sociology perhaps the things you put in her mouth will carry some weight and offer support for your statement. Until then, they do not.

Comparing the situation at hand to a game like boxing is pointless. The rules of the game do favor an opponent with greater reach, for example, but greater reach in and of itself doesn't appear to be any promise of victory - even within the boundaries and confines of the game. Further, the ranges delineated by say, boxing, separate opponents of greater difference than the difference between males and females on average. I could go on and on but of course we would also have to mention that such classes and divisions did not always exist, and their creation is as much about marketing (1 title fight opportunity vs many) as anything else.

I woke up this morning and saw that you had responded and thought to myself "holy shit, maybe he did make an attempt" - but I see that you have not.

(February 25, 2013 at 10:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: I woke up this morning and saw that you had responded and thought to myself "holy shit, maybe he did make an attempt" - but I see that you have not.

lol
you snarky bastard

Quote:Your notion of the big manly man and the little girly girl exists only in your head. The difference between males and females is - here in the US, at a point where there -is- a noticeable difference ; 4% in height, and 8% in body mass on average.

What's your source?
According to this, US men are on average 18% heavier than US women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight#By_country
And according to this, men are 9% taller than women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_heigh..._the_world

---

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalri...ession.htm

Quote:Sexism has been an almost universal condition of civilization, probably due to the fact that men tend to be larger and to have more upper body strength than women. This brings with it a greater average capacity for violence, violence is the language of despotism, and we are only slowly moving beyond despotism. Sexism tends to force women into subservient, restrictive roles that many women do not want, and to force men into dominant, competitive roles that many men do not want.

http://474miranairresearchpaper.wmwikis....5B1%5D.pdf

Quote:The bias toward
patriarchy is probably due to several factors related to the
biology of sexual reproduction: sexual dimorphism (men's greater
size and strength may be one factor that typically allowed men to
dominate preindustrial societies; Harris, 1991 ), the tendency for
men to have a stronger social dominance orientation than women
(as a result of sexual selection; Pratto, Sidanius, & Stallworth,
1993), and gender-based role divisions in which women perform
the bulk of domestic duties (the mother carrying the fetus to term and providing nourishment for infants precipitated the traditional
division of labor that restricted women to domestic roles; Stockard
& Johnson, 1992).

My source would be the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf

Enjoy.

What with human beings having had very few significant evolutionary events in the time-frame of behavioral modernity - and what with your own link mentioning that we are moving away from despotism( as the author chose to frame it) you've done a fine job at arguing my point. Thanks I guess?

Tell me John, what evolutionary event has occurred that made women more or less subservient in any of these populations (or men more or less dominant) - and how did that event remove all other avenues..which would be required to say that it -made- that happen? This would be the case regardless of whether one invoked the drumbeat towards or away from a cultural identity of subservient females, or oppressive males- if your statement wasn't complete garbage (which unfortunately it was and remains). Care to identify the gene - as I've already asked you to do?

Now, should I jump back at the next response or will it be more of the same?

(February 25, 2013 at 11:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: My source would be the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf

Enjoy.

Enjoyed. These also show that adult men are 18% heavier than adult women.

Quote:Tell me John, what evolutionary event has occurred that made women more or less subservient in any of these populations (or men more or less dominant)?

As noted, evolution resulted in men being larger and stronger than women. You noted yourself that physical violence is a means that men have historically used to oppress women. You don't seem to be disputing that evolution resulted in size differences between the sexes. Are you?

So I guess that we would expect evolution (as your proposed cause) to result in that difference (whatever it may be) to be decreased in populations where women are not subservient/males are not oppressive. We would expect to find females that were equal (or larger) in "size" relative to the males. Similarly, we would expect that gene therapy of the 180 or so loci that influence height (weight doesn't seem to have quite as strong a relationship to genetics directly as height does) would result in a decrease in "male oppressiveness" and "female subservience" as direct results of sexual dimorphism - the necessary outcome of evolutionary biology as a causative agent for this (tentatively cultural) problem. All of this of course, because we're looking for causation, not correlation.

To put it a little more simply, if men were shorter and women taller this would result in less oppression.

Or-...you're still talking out of your ass. More of the same.

(though the conversation hasn't been without it's silver lining, at least we're discussing the effect of evolutionary biology in human beings rather than denying it's existence)