The wonders of evolutionary biology and their practical aspects

[Genghis Khan]

I'm guessing you mean if either sex does not want to be sexualize/objectified? As In some people do? If that's the case I must say that those who do (want to) either have bought the lie they've been raised in (Like the girls that dream of appearing on playboy) or passively accept their oppressed roles. Honestly, do you want to be thought of as an object equal to a car, a boat or a plane? All of which are refered to as "she" by BOTH men and women, and are no different to a chair as far as in all are THINGS. Also, why would anybody want to be purely desired for their sex? Do they not have a brain and feelings? to be sexualized is to be relegated to the status of a tool... all you are good for is to look pretty, be admired and fornication. I think those who want that, either male or female, doesn't really know what it implies.  That is called slaved mentallity. My girlfriend learned long ago that "the sex card" doesn't work on me, because I don't have a girlfriend to get "free" sex whenever I want, but a companion and an equal. Men should care for their appearance because they want to, not because they want something in exchange. (Key word here being SHOULD, because of course most do it for sex anyway hehe).
completely agree.

To reiterate I do not spend exorbitant amount of time on appearance, except for special occasions.  I did not mean to imply that either I or my girlfriend use the "sex card" to get what we want, though I did have a girlfriend like that in highschool.  I was quoting from memory an article in a men's magazine.  Now that I think about it, that article has a bias inherent in the sampling.  Only men preoccupied with looks (and therefore buy those magazines) will answer the questions, so there will be a bias indicating more men are submitting to grooming demands for other (ahem) privileges; the results may not infer to the male population at large.

Sometimes, on the other hand, listening to each others suggestions on fashion/grooming can be good for the relationship if it is mutually agreeable and beneficial. 

I don't think that most people who are highly into fashion, to put it mildly, view themselves as objects.  Of course us on the other side can't help but wonder what the fuss is all about.

I agree that parents' roles are huge, but the jibe about absentee fathers isn't as simple as you make it sound. I have lots of examples around me with 2-parent families, single-parent families and "extended" families (where grand parents play a large role in the child rearing together with the parents) and the kids in these different families differ just as they should since they're individuals. But if there is a "negative parental effect" in the way the kids (mainly girls) dress, it's not because the fathers are missing, it's because the mothers dress in a similar way, or - which is more likely - the girls' role models (friends, peers and older girls outside the family) set the standard to emulate. What I read into your view on absentee fathers is the father figure as a punishing figure who raises his daughters through fear and punishment. I hope that's not what you meant?

By father I meant "father figure", so a grandfather or someone filling that role a still a crucial and a positive role.  I did not mean that fathers dispense their wisdom "through fear and punishment".  You're right -- older female role models play a huge role as well.

There are many reasons why fathers are absent, one of which is the legal system that still discriminates against men in custody cases, and many divorces end in a bitterness where co-operation around the children seem to be impossible. That causes issues with the children - identity, role-model confusion and lots of other issues. But to be honest, when you were in your teens, how much did your parents influence the way you dressed or behaved among your friends?

The legal system is becoming more equal, albeit slowly, in Canada.  Parental bickering is the worst case scenario for kids who need and want to share both parents.  I have also read recently (today) that teenage boys are becoming the largest group of absentee fathers in Canada.

Believe it or not, my parents did have a large influence on my dress and behaviour.

 

[Anomica]

With the family structure we see throughout the western world today, I think boys and girls lack good male role models. I think it's the same where you are as it is in Sweden, that children don't meet many men in daycare and school until the early to mid teens. In Sweden, most day-care staff and school teachers are women until 6th grade or so (when the kids are 12), during the following years they meet more and more male teachers and when they come to the university the teachers are mostly male. This naturally causes problems, regardles of if the children lives with their mother, their father or both since a growing human need role models of different ages and places in life (sometimes maybe these role models would be called warning examples ).

What got my reaction was the old argument that absentee fathers are the root of many problems. Many children of single mothers have higher grades than their peers with two parents, they help out more at home which prepares them for when they move away from home, they are more independent and so on. It doesn't necessarily need to be a problem when one parent leaves, as long as the children don't take the blame - which many children do...

I think it's a bigger issue with children growing up - with one or two parents - in areas where unemployment and poverty levels are high and opportunities are low. That's usually where youth gangs show up and can become the role model on young, impressionable kids. I believe that's where the major problems arise.

 

[Natalie]

I think what matters alot is when the father leaves. If the child didn't even get to know him I don't really see the issue until they notice other children have a father figure in their lives and begin to ask questions about this. It becomes more complicated when the father has been a part of the family for a substantial amount of time. Children get caught up in the custody lawsuit and can do nothing but look on. It is an entirely different matter yet again when the father leaves and the children are old enough to be able to chose between living with their mother or father. I agree that children need both parents for as long as possible, but when it comes to choosing between mothers and fathers I think there is good reason why the mother is nearly always chosen. The child might not see it, but mostly the mother is the one who really cares for the child even though they sometimes have to be cruel to be kind.

On a further note since I am one of these children with an absent father I have to say that I am only glad he's out of my life, it really made a whole lot of things much easier. Between having him back here and living without  him I'd choose the first one any day. I think theres a point when the 'bad' influence of a father or mother outweighs the benefits of having two parents.

"to be sexualized is to be relegated to the status of a tool... all you are good for is to look pretty, be admired and fornication." (Onhell). -Yet this is what women have been for the past 2 millenia. I'm sorry, but this thread talks alot about equality and how men shouldn't be sexualized and women need better role models, but maybe all that is needed is a re-evaluation of the female identity. Yes, I don't think men should be sexualized, but I think a more pressing issue is that women are STILL viewed as sexual objects by men (not all men of course). The media isn't helping in this respect, but it doesn't surprise me since the media is run by, surprise, surprise, men. I think what society needs is another sufragette movement. But maybe this time  instead of trying to be like men we should get men to be more like us. Expect me to be leading a campaign soon. 

No seriously, I think women are still viewed as inferior beings and this needs to be changed. Alright women win in the custody of children, but lets think simply from a biological point of view which parent is more likely to feel responsible for the child. And just think in how many other ways women are discriminated against. Let us at least win at something.

P.S. I realize I sound like an avid feminist in this post, but I think this thread needs a female perspective on things thrown in. 

 

[Albie]

Alright women win in the custody of children, but lets think simply from a biological point of view which parent is more likely to feel responsible for the child. And just think in how many other ways women are discriminated against. Let us at least win at something.

I dare say a lot of Fathers actually do feel responsible for their own children - and I mean a lot. My parents divorced when I was 8 and it was my Dad that won custody, because he did what just about every Father would do - fight to see their own children (or better still, custody). This is why we see organisations such as Fathers for Justice have sprung up - they do care.

And as much as I would back any equality amongst between men/women or whatever, I really don't think this is a battle women should "win" because of inequalities elsewhere. The only people that should win are the happy children.

 

[Onhell]

"to be sexualized is to be relegated to the status of a tool... all you are good for is to look pretty, be admired and fornication." (Onhell). -Yet this is what women have been for the past 2 millenia. I'm sorry, but this thread talks alot about equality and how men shouldn't be sexualized and women need better role models, but maybe all that is needed is a re-evaluation of the female identity. Yes, I don't think men should be sexualized, but I think a more pressing issue is that women are STILL viewed as sexual objects by men (not all men of course). The media isn't helping in this respect, but it doesn't surprise me since the media is run by, surprise, surprise, men. I think what society needs is another sufragette movement. But maybe this time  instead of trying to be like men we should get men to be more like us. Expect me to be leading a campaign soon. 

No seriously, I think women are still viewed as inferior beings and this needs to be changed. Alright women win in the custody of children, but lets think simply from a biological point of view which parent is more likely to feel responsible for the child. And just think in how many other ways women are discriminated against. Let us at least win at something.

P.S. I realize I sound like an avid feminist in this post, but I think this thread needs a female perspective on things thrown in. 

Hmm, reread my posts more closely Natalie, you'll see that is exactly what I was griping about, never did I say women were no longer sexualized. When I pointed out that men were being sexualized too I did it to point out that two wrongs don't make a right. If anybody is interested I suggest "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir or Charlotte Perkins Gillman's major work... which at the moment eludes me, but I'll look it up as soon as I get home.

 

[Anomica]

...I think there is good reason why the mother is nearly always chosen. The child might not see it, but mostly the mother is the one who really cares for the child even though they sometimes have to be cruel to be kind.

I'm sorry, Natalie, but to me this is utter bs! Anyone who is a father will probably feel attacked when you claim that we don't really care for our children! I have many male friends who's had to fight the system over 3-4-5 years in order to even get to see their children, even though custody is shared, because mothers don't seem to have to follow the law. I know they have to, but nothing happens. And these men are not "dead beat" dads, or alcoholics, or sexually abusive - they just happen to love and care for their children. But according to an antiquated legal system, there is nothing that can be called "father's feelings" (translation from Swedish) as opposed to "mother's feelings", which is never disputed. A mother sometimes have to be an alcoholic, drug addict and prostitute in order to loose custody to a father with a good job and a good life in general.

I hate it when I see parents fighting and using their children as bats between them, but don't tell me it's the fathers that do this while the mothers sit around in the corners crying or being generally nice people and the men are the horrible ones. When you say that "mostly the mother is the one who really cares for the child" you only cement a 50s view of the happy housewife, who takes care of the children, cleans the house, cooks dinner and always with a happy smile on her face. In modern society, most parents are equally apt at caring for their children as well as working. Don't claim that mothers are the better care taker - I can't breast feed my children, but that's the only major difference between my wife and me when it comes to parenting. And that goes for most of today's couples.

 

[Natalie]

Anyone who is a father will probably feel attacked when you claim that we don't really care for our children!

The child might not see it, but mostly the mother is the one who really cares for the child even though they sometimes have to be cruel to be kind.
[/quote]

I am not saying that you don't really care for your children. I am saying mostly (from my own experience) the mother is the one who really cares about the child in the sense that they care for their well-being and know what is best for the child, not what is best for themselves. This is simply because mothers spend more time with their children, which is the case because they spend (generally) more time at home. Why? Because men have a higher salary (in general) than women, and so they work rather than stay at home. I think this situation is not good, and that it would be much better if men and women would get equal salaries so that more fathers would have the option of staying at home.

Now for Onhell. I realize you didn't say that women are no longer sexualized. What I was basing my post on was: "Also, why would anybody want to be purely desired for their sex? Do they not have a brain and feelings? to be sexualized is to be relegated to the status of a tool... all you are good for is to look pretty, be admired and fornication. I think those who want that, either male or female, doesn't really know what it implies." What I was trying to say is that women, regardless of if they want to or not, have been relegated to the status of a tool for a very long time. That is, women might not have wanted to be purely desired for their sex, but they have been purely desired for their sex, and in many cases the only way to survive for women has been to play along with this. However, I haveto say that I am disgusted at those people, male or female, who in our society continue to perpetuate this tradition of sexualization. I have no respect for the women who do this nowadays.

On a further note, I get the feeling that those who post on this thread think that women are viewed as equal to men by our modern society. Before I post something countering this idea, I'd like to know if you really think so (yes, I'm looking at you Anomica, and you Onhell).

P.S. "In modern society, most parents are equally apt at caring for their children as well as working." Where are you from, Anomica?

 

[LooseCannon]

Women are equal in modern, western society, in all but a handful of physiological functions to which we biologically differ.  And if there's ever a situation in which the equality of women is challenged, I feel compelled to act.  Protests, letters, etc.  However, I have not often seen that sort of threat.  The government, for instance, at least mine, has taken steps to equalize pay between men and women.  Women are being promoted as often as men.

When it comes to the ability of parents to care for their children, well.  I only have one set of parents, and I would feel equally at ease with either, and either has the ability to function as "breadwinner".  It was a choice for my mom to stay home when I and my siblings were born.  The only reason my dad still functions as the primary income is because he didn't take 15 years off work, and thus, has seniority in his job.  If mom had wanted to work there were options for her; similarly, there is now the option of paternal leave in place of maternity leave.

 

[Onhell]

I am not saying that you don't really care for your children. I am saying mostly (from my own experience) the mother is the one who really cares about the child in the sense that they care for their well-being and know what is best for the child, not what is best for themselves.

I still have to disagree, because you are personalizing the issue. you gave it away by saying "from my own experiance". From my experiance that is true too, my dad was ok when he was around but now has become what we call "Wallet Dad," "Papá de cartera," which means he is fine as long as he is able to give us a few dollars here and there, but isn't around to be proud of our work, gives us a hug, etc. Yet I have a friend who has always had custody and has cared for his son and all his needs from day one. His wife wanted nothing to do with him or the child and he is fine with that. In modern WESTERN society biological ties no longer set things in stone. Just because women have children doesn't mean they have a "mother instinct" that Men lack. These things are learned, both men and women can be socialized (or fail to be) into knowing how to care for a child.


As for the other point. THEORETICALLY women are seen as equal to men, legally not really and realistically most men are as sexist and degrading towards them as before, only now they repress it because it is becoming less acceptable. There are three stages in the battle for women equality: Traditional, Transitional and Egalitarian. Traditional obviously means that the men work outside the home, women are housewives. Transitional is that men agree women should be able to work outside the home and that they (the men) should help around the house more, but realistically they don't really help out that much and women not only work outside the home, but do the bulk of the work at home. And Egalitarian means that men see and treatmwomen as equals and really do about equal work (exactly 50/50 is impossible).

And as for what LC cd about the canadian government. In the U.S women earn 73-77 cents to every dollar a man earns. If she leaves the work force (for whatever reason) for a at least a year, when she returns she will make 35% less than what she was making compared to 25% a man gets cut. Women suffer higher numbers of sexual harrasment and discrimination in the work place if they make up less than 15% of the employees. This is known as being a "Token". It happens with ANY minority, not just women, however we are talking about women. So if they make up less than 15% percent they "stand out" and are targeted, but if they make up 15% or higher then become invisible in the over all population. Affirmative action has done well in giving jobs to women and minorities and of over 400 cases of reverse discrimination filed by white men, only 5 were seriously considered.

EDIT: Where are all the women in the board? i KNOW Natalie is not the only one! Speak up dammit!

 

[Genghis Khan]

The government, for instance, at least mine, has taken steps to equalize pay between men and women.  Women are being promoted as often as men.

True.  Our government parties, for instance, always look and advertise that they desire more women and minorities.

If mom had wanted to work there were options for her; similarly, there is now the option of paternal leave in place of maternity leave.

I find that in education this is especially true.  Often fathers take a leave of absence to take care of their sick children. 



@Anomica: I find it a bit surprising that in Sweden teachers are almost exclusively women until adolescent school age.  In Canada the sexes are generally equal in teaching after grade 5.  Female high school teachers and university professors are common.

From my experiance that is true too, my dad was ok when he was around but now has become what we call "Wallet Dad," "Papá de cartera," which means he is fine as long as he is able to give us a few dollars here and there, but isn't around to be proud of our work, gives us a hug, etc.

My father was like that too.  He meant well but did not know how to really be good father.  He was around, but always tired after work.  We never had a bonding experience. 

These things are learned, both men and women can be socialized (or fail to be) into knowing how to care for a child.

Bravo! 

EDIT: Where are all the women in the board? i KNOW Natalie is not the only one! Speak up dammit!

I'd like to know that too.  This thread is turning into the best thread I've been a part of.

 

[Anonymous]

Quite right Onhell, Natalie is not the only one there... Haven't been around lately, that's why...

I must admit that this thread is highly interesting: reading men’s point of views on that matter was somehow surprising and quite enlighting.
There are a lot of subject discussed about here... so I'll try not to mix them.

First on the women status. Basically, what I think is simple: women are not things to toy with.
Our societies (and the plural is not a mistake) are still objectifying women as sexual objects and/or as things. The sexual bias is the obvious one, so I suppose it's why it's the most talked of, but the thing bias is equally huge.

This leads me to answer LooseCanon: no, even in western societies, I do not think women and men are equal. You may feel it so, but it's not. Women and men don't have the same kind of job or if they have, women are less paid than men for example. That's an obvious example, but the inequality is most of the time self-implied.

A man having several love's affairs is a "Don Juan", a woman is a whore.
A man caring for his look is a metro-sexual, a woman is self-obsessed.
A man with tight-fitting clothes doesn't bother a lot of people, a woman with tight-fitting clothes is a slut.
A man privileging his career over his family is seen as ambitious, sometimes successful and responsible, a woman privileging her career over her family is seen as a bad mother.
And I could go on and on…

The very first bias is in vocabulary and in ways of seeing one gender or the other. As Natalie said, it’s been on for ages. The women’s emancipation movement is still young and there is still so much to work on…

Genkhis Khan, I must say the way you assert the will of your government to prove your point on the subject of equality is quite ironical: “women and minorities”. It simply speaks for itself, doesn’t it?


As for the “the mother is the one who really cares for the child », I totally disagree on that point. “Motherhood instinct” is another big lie of our societies.

 

[Natalie]

Very pleased to hear from you Le Hibou 

I think one difficulty about discussing this subject is that some of us live in societies where women are more emancipated than in others. I get the feeling that in Canada, women are more equal to men than in Austria for example. I say this because apparently the distribution of male and female secondary education in Canada is equal. Here you get lots of female teachers in primary school but then a decline until in university there are hardly any female professors. Even in my school which is an international one there is this general trend. We were discussing this in German class the other day and our (female) teacher shocked us by telling us that out of all the departments only 2 have women as the department heads (and neither of these in the sciences).

 

[Genghis Khan]

@ Le Hibou/Owly:  I never said the equality is perfect.  But it is improving.  The main problem is how boys/girls are socialized and the advertising companies and Hollywood are very influential.  Unfortunately, governments do have to step in to resolve injustices of the past.  I'd rather it be a voluntary conscientious effort by everyone, but many men and some women do not care to put effort into social equality. 

From personal experiences, I have noticed that education plays an enourmous role in helping to bring equality between the sexes.  Educated married men, in my experience, are more likely to share house work, child-rearing and other "traditionally female" responsibilites than men with a small education.  Speaking of education, girls are continually showing to be better students (in Canada) then their male counterparts.  According to educational researchers, the fact that primary grades (Kindergarden to Gr. 3) lack male teachers/role models is one of key reasons why boys fall behind in school.  They don't see education as important for them since no male role model exist that early.  This is a generalization, of course.

EDIT: Something just occurred to me, so I decided to edit this post.  By writing the above statement concerning boys' poor academic performance I was not trying to imply that femenists seek equality by lowering the standard of males.  I know better. 

 

[LooseCannon]

This leads me to answer LooseCanon: no, even in western societies, I do not think women and men are equal. You may feel it so, but it's not. Women and men don't have the same kind of job or if they have, women are less paid than men for example. That's an obvious example, but the inequality is most of the time self-implied.

A man having several love's affairs is a "Don Juan", a woman is a whore.
A man caring for his look is a metro-sexual, a woman is self-obsessed.
A man with tight-fitting clothes doesn't bother a lot of people, a woman with tight-fitting clothes is a slut.
A man privileging his career over his family is seen as ambitious, sometimes successful and responsible, a woman privileging her career over her family is seen as a bad mother.
And I could go on and on…

Your point is taken but not entirely valid.  At the centre of the development of civilization, which I currently consider to be the university/academic environment, people regard these things less.  For instance, I attempt my damndest to not think of a woman with several partners as a slut, and I discourage that behaviour from those around me.  Quite frankly, a woman who wishes to sleep with amounts of men, it's their business, not mine.

I think men and women who take "looking good" to the extreme are obsessive.

Same deal with the clothing...and I have never heard anyone disparage a career-going mother.  I admit my point of view is somewhat rosy - I grew up in a very socially liberal family who taught strong values of equality.  But I see it reflected in society.  Is the work done?  No.  Is the groundwork in place?  Yes.  It takes time, all things do, but we'll see things becoming more and more equal.

 

[Anonymous]

You're talking about yourself, Owly is talking about society.

 

[Onhell]

  Speaking of education, girls are continually showing to be better students (in Canada) then their male counterparts.  According to educational researchers, the fact that primary grades (Kindergarden to Gr. 3) lack male teachers/role models is one of key reasons why boys fall behind in school.  They don't see education as important for them since no male role model exist that early.  This is a generalization, of course.

This is not true. The reason girls are outperforming boys (even in University) is not lack of male role models at any grade level. The reason is because for the past 30 years women have been hearing the message, "you can do anything," and they have. More women are getting their degrees, but most that is as far as they go leaving their careers for families (not entirely their fault, mostly the system's for having horrible family policies).

It is like saying that whites are being left behind in pro sports (except hockey) because of no good role models, when the reality is pro-atheletes (by and large) are from poor backgrounds and instead of getting an education they put all their time and energy in "making it" in pro sports. And it so happens minorities outnumber whites as far as being poor goes.

same with women and education. They weren't encouraged for centuries and now they are being encouraged from everywhere, so they attend and perform well, because they feel they have something to prove, just like the basketball player from the NY ghetto.

 

[Genghis Khan]

@ Onhell: your point does not in any way make mine incorrect. 



I think what Owly is saying, essentially is this:
Typically, masculine values and traits are regarded by all societies as positive in males and to a lesser degree in females.  Feminine values and traits are largely regarded by all societies as normal and necessary in females but unworkable or wrong in males.  In short, typical male values and traits are given bigger credit then the typical female values.  (I am using the traditional views when labeling 'female' and 'male' here).

 

[Onhell]

You are right, it doesn't make it wrong, it makes it false

 

[Genghis Khan]

Onhell, you're putting too much emphasis on will power and not nearly enough on role models.  Young minds require good educators.  Good habits in education start early, before adolescence.  Prepubescent girls are not saying: "Because of historical discrimination against women, I choose to study hard."  More likely, their parents, their teachers and other role models are encouraging their natural intelligence.  Women, in general, also mature quicker and are thus more responsible.  In other words, they are less likely to spend the weekend before the due date of their big essay, yet unstarted, drinking with their friends as a way to combat stress.  I say this without naming anyone specifically.   

 

[LooseCannon]

You're talking about yourself, Owly is talking about society.

How am I not a reflection of society, and how does society not reflect me?  My point is that I believe that I, and many of my peers, are educated individuals who believe in and espouse aspects of equality.  It's not 100% perfect, and I can't claim that, but I do try my level best, and especially to influence those of my peers who disagree with the idea of equality.

My point is that as more and more people are exposed to the values that some of us acknowledge, over time, the situation will grow to be more fair all around.  And then my previous point was that in many liberal democracies, the legal framework for such equality has already been laid.  Is it completely fair, here and there and everywhere?  No.  But things are not bleak, either.

I'm sorry.  I don't mean to seem contrite, but I have dealt with, for lack of a better term, rabid feminists who have accused me, personally, of trying to drag women back to the dark ages; I have dealt with people who believe in Victorian or pre-Victorian values and have accused me of being an idiot for not treating women like property.  The point is that if a woman, in a liberal democracy, feels discriminated against because of her sex, there is:
a: legal recourse
b: peer support
c: spreading education on equality.

When you compare to, not 1960, or 1970, but 1985 in this country (Canada), in 21 years there have been huge steps.  The delegalization of rape in wedlock.  The expansion of women's support groups and shelters.  The creation of equal-rights education between the sexes.  The enforced equalization of wages between men and women both in government and in private business.  Shortly beforehand was the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees the equality of the sexes and the courts have consistently upheld that document.

I am not an expert on the status of women, not even in this country.  However, it is my firm belief, supported by observation, that things are improving, and are much nearer-to equal than they were when I was 20, 15, 10, and 5.  I forsee it as like a...fuck, a curve that starts off very close to the vertical axis and ends very close to the horizontal axis.  Nothing for a long time, and then several decades of rapid change...followed by a long time gradually getting closer to equality as adjustments are continued to be made.\

You may call me an idealist if you wish.