• ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    I know it’s easy to get “Morally frustrated” thinking about this, in this context.

    However the point of the paradox is simple:

    In some parts of the world (e.g. Spain) women have gained more rights than men, legally.

    People make mistakes (as this may be) sometimes, but now I would want to discuss why this is reasonable, or at least partially.

    Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species.

    That’s the reason why there may be a logical explanation why there has not been real opposition to the idea of them having more rights, legally so far, and in culture.

    However, and in this lies the paradoxical question, men are stronger.

    What does this have to do?

    When it comes to society, everything depends on law, culture and other forms social behavior. But, what ultimately determines law, culture and so on, is actually strength.

    If men wanted to, they could enslave women.

    I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t.

    So, if women are biologically more important than men, but men are stronger and could override that women superiority,

    What is the most coherent way to conclude this?
  • SpaceDweller
    417
    Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    This would be true if humanity faced an extinction, but this is far from being the case.
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66


    The thing is that nature does not distinguish very well between having an extinction or not. Evolution itself is not intelligent
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    Evolution itself is not intelligentithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    Do you really think so? Evolution could be very intelligent itself. This is why (with along all circumstances) the humankind has survived against all chaotic circumstances.
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66


    Yes, but that is because of the very point of evolution: to evolve implies to survive, not because of intelligence.

    For humankind to survive, the life of women is more important than the life of men. I think that is documented enough so... that's why I just take it as a fact in my question. The very point of my question is more the relationship between that fact (fact, until someone refutes it, which I think it's hard as to refute the known distance between the sun and the earth) and society.

    Thank you for your answers.
  • javi2541997
    1.5k


    Yes, I understand your argument and it is very well defended. I guess procreation could be the main fact of why women tend to be protected along the history
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66


    Yes, and tend to be the most corrupted too.

    Don't get me wrong, I know this fits in the feminist speech perfectly, but I'm not a feminist. Just to be clear.

    Women have evolutionary superiority. That somehow transforms into social superiority too. That can be visualized through the way they can use sex to manipulate men, for example.

    However, despite this, men are physically stronger than women.

    Unfortunately, this is something men have taken advantage of a lot, as women have of the former.

    So... the big question is...

    Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely?

    It is what we have been doing since the birth of our species I think. The answer seems to be an obvious "Yes", but I prefer to reflect.
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely?ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    I think not but, at the same time, men and women tend to be pretty separated from each other. We are clearly different. This is not necessarily to makes us be on war all the time. I just want to say that we are more different that we even used to.
    Another problem: politicians use this complot to reach votes. Ergo, it is a topic that in the future would lose some credibility among the society
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    politicians use this complot to reach votes.javi2541997

    Yes but that is temporary. They always take advantage of the current problematic and then throw it away when they can't get much more out of it.

    it is a topic that in the future would lose some credibility among the societyjavi2541997

    What do you exactly mean?
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    What do you exactly mean?ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    I mean, politician’s speeches tend to be vacuous. We all know that they use some words just to gain some votes but we do not really know if they really believe on it. They are just words. It could have some impact among the voters but if they do not reach the main goals, the citizens would not longer believe on their principles.
    So, in this vicious context, someone would ask: What does feminism stands for? How worthy is it?
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    What does feminism stands for? How worthy is it?javi2541997

    Some conspiracy theorist say that it is a way to separate men and women as parents so the government can take place and make civilization easier to "Socialize" taking parent's place in the long run. "Dismantling patriarchy" in the language of political speech.

    The worst part is that I see that is more reasonable than most of what they claim to defend.

    Jokes/conspiracy aside, there is something that is true:

    Women and men are separating themselves from each other.

    Maybe because of politics, maybe because of evolution... In any way, it is hard to bring a lovely conclusion out of this.
  • Tzeentch
    1.5k
    Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely?ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    Should individuals live "at war" with each other in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over?

    Doesn't seem very coherent to me.
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    it is hard to bring a lovely conclusion out of this.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    It is hard because we live separately and it will be so because it looks like we are different just for nature facts
  • L'éléphant
    651
    If men wanted to, they could enslave women.

    I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t.

    So, if women are biologically more important than men, but men are stronger and could override that women superiority,

    What is the most coherent way to conclude this?
    ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    Mass suicide.

    Women could deny that important function, which is the womb.

    You are forgetting that in nature, the need to carry something in the womb is fostered by the favorable environment. Females wouldn't want to bear children if it's not conducive in the environment they're in.
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    Should individuals live "at war" with each other in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over?Tzeentch

    "in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over"

    I think you are trying to tergiversate the main point of the conversation. I will not answer to you but may others note that before doing it.
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    Mass suicide.L'éléphant

    I must admit I'm biased to a more sustainable option.
  • L'éléphant
    651
    I must admit I'm biased to a more sustainable option.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    Then that would be the men's decision. They're the ones who decide what's sustainable long term. And so we find ourselves in this reality that we're in now.
  • Tzeentch
    1.5k
    I think you are trying to tergiversate the main point of the conversation.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    Wouldn't it be revelant to your logically coherent conclusion that individuals in the way you describe them are not acting rationally?
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    Wouldn't it be revelant to your logically coherent conclusion that individuals in the way you describe them are not acting rationally?Tzeentch

    Yes. The problem with rationality is that it is not what governs history of humankind, precisely.
  • SpaceDweller
    417
    Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    This would be true if humanity faced an extinction, but this is far from being the case.SpaceDweller

    The thing is that nature does not distinguish very well between having an extinction or not. Evolution itself is not intelligentithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    your men\women ratio includes 2 things:
    1.) reproduction
    2.) sex

    ... And you seem to imply because female requires 9 months to finish procreation that male needs to wait 9 months or look for other female else were.
    Which is not evolutionary correct, sex is possible within all 9 months of procreation phase.

    Otherwise your point is that 9 months required for procreation is too long compared to male's job therefore female is of more worth.
    Which is also false because evolutionary male is supposed to protect female during that 9 months period.
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    male is supposed to protect female during that 9 months period.SpaceDweller

    Yes but that does not imply that a man cannot copulate with other women during that period.

    your point isSpaceDweller

    You are wrong with this. It is not my point, my point was the question that I made.
    That what you are quoting are things that I did not just think. They are well documented. You can do research if you want...
  • SpaceDweller
    417
    Yes but that does not imply that a man cannot copulate with other women during that period.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    it can, but there is a big "but"...

    1. other females may already be conceived by other males, I mean any further copulation would bring no benefit for reproduction or survival.
    Copulation is possible whether a female is conceived or not, by both male and female.
    2. if other females are already conceived by other males then copulation will likely result in failure since the male is evolutionary close to female during that 9 moth period providing protection for embryo during 9 month period.

    We are talking about humans here, but I also take into account animals and how evolution and reproduction is supposed to naturally work, among humans it's not all the same as with animals but the point is almost the same.

    Taking into account that people do the thing whenever possible is not according to evolution or how it's supposed to be, if you understand what I mean?
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    other females may already be conceived by other malesSpaceDweller

    I am not talking about females who are pregnant. That is why they are more important, because the more of them that there are, the more the species can grow. It is that simple... I genuinely do not know why you have something to say about it... You can say whatever you want, but you are currently honoring Plato:

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools speak because they have to say something."

    Right now you are acting like you have to say something.

    Did you even do some research about it?

    I genuinely love to debate, I believe it's one of the most delicious things on earth (after sex) but I will not debate something that has been so well argued. So I will not reply again about it.

    I would be glad if you give me your opinion on the main topic, however

    What is the most coherent way to conclude this?ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
  • ssu
    5.8k
    If men wanted to, they could enslave women.

    I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t.
    ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    I guess you haven't been married.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Women are more necessary in biological terms than menithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    How so? The gentlemen produce the sperm. Just as necessary, if you don't mind me saying. Without sperm, no egg can be awakened.
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66


    I have not. Based on your comment I guess I would not last long apparently anyway. (joke)

    How so? The gentlemen produce the sperm. Just as necessary, if you don't mind me saying. Without sperm, no egg can be awakened.Hillary

    Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    Explanation (I repeat this is something documented):

    How many babies can one woman have in one year? The answer is approximately one.
    How many babies can ten women have in the same amount of time? The answer is approximately ten.

    Now:

    How many babies can one man have in one year? Approximately 365. Maybe twice if he's healthy. (joke)

    So, the more women there are, the more the probability is there for the specie to prevail. If there is zero men, then the specie will not prevail. However, women are more important for the specie to survive because, the more women there are, the more possibilities for more babies to be born.

    We are not talking here about overall importance, we are talking about evolutionary importance.

    I am not implying that men are of less value than women. I repeat, I am talking about evolutionary importance. So they are in fact more valuable than men in evolutionary terms.

    Any emotional inference is simply wrong, as I am not talking about personal value.
  • Moses
    58
    I guess you haven't been married.ssu



    I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    How many babies can one man have in one year? Approximately 365.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    A man can have 365 babies per year? With 365 women? He can impregnate all woman in the world in two months! Ten days if extrememist male and healthy!
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    A man can have 365 babies per year? With 365 women? He can impregnate all woman in the world in two months!Hillary

    Yes.
    I don't know why you are omitting the point.

    Anyways...

    Thank you for you answers.

    I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them.Moses

    If an individual is controlled by someone physically inferior, it is because he grants it.
    (Maybe he/she would grant it because he/she is mentally inferior).

    It is really common to see strong men controlled by stronger minds because the latter can shape the reality the former see.

    If an average man's power of will is determined by an average woman's power of will, it is generally because he is letting her do it (I say average because there are really strong women too). I do not know why you think it would make any difference if I would be married... I know you are joking but almost nobody jokes not intending to say some truth, at least intending.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Yes.
    I don't know why you are omitting the point
    ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    What do I omit?
  • ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
    66
    What do I omit?Hillary

    I prefer not to say.

    As stated above:

    I genuinely love to debate, I believe it's one of the most delicious things on earth (after sex) but I will not debate something that has been so well argued. So I will not reply again about it.ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

    Well, I don't have much more to say.

    I am still not very clear about this but I think I just have to read more anthropology...

    Thank you again for your answers.
    I hope you have a great day.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.