Sorry, but women are dependent on men


Ariadne
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Not at all, anymore than your dependant on me if you write something that makes me sad so I eat a box of ice cream. That is to say nothing, it doesn't affect you.

Men don't need women to incubate their child. If you choose not to he has dick to say about it. But you have been saying that women NEED men to take of them because they are incapable looking after themselves and their babies (as the option of forcing the man to take sole custody has not once been brought up, its always support the mother and her baby).

Personally I think women are more than capable of raising a child on their own, I was raised by a single mom in my formative years. They have never seemed dependant to me.

Correction, I have been saying that men must take responsibility for the children they conceive and bring into this world for the sake of the children, not the parents - but that's another thread.
 
Sassylassie
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I know I wouldn't!!
Oh wait, that wasn't a theoretical question was it?

LOL Bear, the misses might have something to say about you wanting to date Doctor Strange Glove or is that Loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
 
Ariadne
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by sanctusView Post

Bit of a sterotype, don't you think? I know several men who not only have sole custody of their children, but are perfectly capable of running a household. Mind you, I will admit that most men I know who are living with women seem to be, saddly to say, rather hopeless when it comes to anything regarding caring for the house, the kids or even themselves.

Yup, you're right. It's as much of a stereotype as it is to suggest that the reason women want to look attractive is because they are insecure and dependent on men ... fearful of losing them.

I know men that manage very successful careers and raise children alone. They are a special breed. Single parenting with a full time career requires prioritizing things because there's always more to do than time to do it all.
 
Dexter Sinister
#34
There's way too much political correctness with regard to gender politics going on in this thread. I'm not supportive of the thesis offered in the OP, not because I think Dr. Neave is necessarily wrong, but because one of the features of human behaviour is that we're not slaves to biological imperatives. He's talking about biological imperatives, but unlike any other animal, humans can choose how we behave. But Dr. Neave might have some useful insights, we shouldn't dismiss him simply because we don't like some of his conclusions. He's quite right about some things, for instance. Men on average are physically larger and stronger than women. Fact of life. Pick any man and any woman and chances are you'll find the man has much greater upper body strength, even if the woman is quite a bit larger than he is. Fact of life. Women can get pregnant, bear babies, and nurse them, men can't. Fact of life. These things have causes, and consequences.

And consider this: in terms of simple reproduction, just perpetuating the species, one male could easily (and probably very happily) provide the necessary sperm for hundreds or thousands of pregnancies, so why isn't the male:female ratio 1:100, or 1:1000? Why is it almost exactly 1:1? There are evolutionary reasons for that, selection pressures that keep the sex ratio about even.

In this thread I've seen ad hominem attacks on Dr. Neaves, and many instances of the fallacy of composition. Not liking his conclusions doesn't mean he's wrong, nor does the fact that any particular woman doesn't behave as he suggests mean he's wrong. He's talking about statistical behaviour patterns, not the behaviour of particular individuals. Has it escaped your notice, for instance, that the makeup and fashion industries are directed almost entirely at women? You think that's an accident? It's not. Been to a formal do lately and noticed the difference in how men and women dress at such things? Compare a man's tuxedo to a woman's formal gown. The former pinches the waist and exaggerates the shoulders, accentuating particular male secondary sexual characteristics. It's an intimidation suit. The latter usually reveals a lot of skin and the exaggerates the size and shape of the woman's secondary sexual characteristics, mostly breasts. It's a costume that says I'm healthy and fertile. That's not an accident either.

In short, Dr. Neave's thesis is a good deal more subtle than many of you want to accept. He may or may not be right, but nobody yet has posted a scientifically sound reason for thinking he's not.
 
Jay
#35
Quote:

not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them.


Why can't I come up with lines like that?
 
Dexter Sinister
#36
Because you're not a genius?

I think we're probably programmed to depend on each other, it doesn't go just one way.

And another truism: most women wear makeup and scent, most men do not. There's a reason for that, and it's not because women are ugly and stinky and men aren't. It's about particular kinds of display, fitness in the Darwinian sense, and what males and females differentially perceive as important in the great game of reproduction.
Last edited by Dexter Sinister; Dec 6th, 2006 at 12:42 AM..
 
Curiosity
#37
I'll always be angry with the Women's Liberation movements ....

They ran with the wrong banner.

It isn't about demeaning the male or that women can be independent, or males are sperm donors only....

It is about being equal together as a couple with love and respect, following parallel paths by choice.

Even that never achieves "perfection" as we feel it should.... because if we achieved perfection we would stop trying to be exciting for each other.

Each gender has wonderful differences - they should be celebrated as positives.
 
jimmoyer
#38
we seemed to argue about everything. Why? Because we are both alphas. Our truce is based on the fact that we are equal in almost every way. I just get to stand when I pee.

This is the most simplest yet profound example of our determination in the equality of our relationship.

The toilet seat...

It takes as much effort for me to raise it as it does for Boo to put it down. So, therefore, there is no issue if it is left up or down by the other. All it takes is an awareness of ones surroundings to avoid the cold bowl scenerio, as it does the same to not pee on the seat.
----------------------------------------CDNBear----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL !!!

THAT'S TAKING A STAND !!!

Aiyeeeeeeee!!!

I learned that life became so much easier when I just roboticly automatically put the toilet
seat back down after I peed standing up.

No fuss.

No muss.

I can't take the endless #@!itching.

Any other policy on this matter is just a bunch of heinous hyena guacamoleeeeeeee.


 
Ariadne
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

There's way too much political correctness with regard to gender politics going on in this thread. I'm not supportive of the thesis offered in the OP, not because I think Dr. Neave is necessarily wrong, but because one of the features of human behaviour is that we're not slaves to biological imperatives. He's talking about biological imperatives, but unlike any other animal, humans can choose how we behave. But Dr. Neave might have some useful insights, we shouldn't dismiss him simply because we don't like some of his conclusions. He's quite right about some things, for instance. Men on average are physically larger and stronger than women. Fact of life. Pick any man and any woman and chances are you'll find the man has much greater upper body strength, even if the woman is quite a bit larger than he is. Fact of life. Women can get pregnant, bear babies, and nurse them, men can't. Fact of life. These things have causes, and consequences.
And consider this: in terms of simple reproduction, just perpetuating the species, one male could easily (and probably very happily) provide the necessary sperm for hundreds or thousands of pregnancies, so why isn't the male:female ratio 1:100, or 1:1000? Why is it almost exactly 1:1? There are evolutionary reasons for that, selection pressures that keep the sex ratio about even.
In this thread I've seen ad hominem attacks on Dr. Neaves, and many instances of the fallacy of composition. Not liking his...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Women are not the same at all ages. He is probably correct in his assessment of females in the teenage to early 20 years. They are driven by the fashion industry, are prone to anorexia, do believe that looking attractive will gain and secure a male companion, job and more. This age group is without a doubt victimized by the media ... or should I say, they are the chosen demographic group of the fashion industry. Most women mature and learn that a sense of humour or intelligent conversation is probably more important in companionship than a face full of make-up and all the trimmings that go with trying to look like someone different than they are.

Explaining that men are biologically different than women is along the lines of pre-school education, not academic papers.

Healthy and fertile or strong and protective is part of socio-biology; people, as mamals, are born with it. The need for male animals to strut and female animals to attract has nothing to do with fashion or women depending on men.
 
hermanntrude
#40
nonsense.

I know plenty of women who need a man. BUT i also know plenty who dont, AND i know plenty of men who are totally dependant on a woman.

think for yourself, don't just believe it because it was published
 
Curiosity
#41
Hermann

I like to think we "choose" our partners not because we "need" them.
 
hermanntrude
#42
some people, generally the more screwed up ones, actually seem to need someone. this is the type of person who goes around with a boyfriend/girlfriend that treats them like dirt rather than be alone. i'm sure you've met one
 
jimmoyer
#43
Me lady has a demon laugh. It's pretty funny.
But really scary in the dark when I can't see her.

Am I dependent on her ?

Yep.
 
L Gilbert
#44
Exactly, Bear. Not only can we be interderpendent, but we can be independent, as well.

Neaves article is funny, though. Mostly because generalizations about groups of people tend to be funny. I kinda thought he was drawing a caricature of humans.
 
Curiosity
#45
Well - I don't know the guy but I think Dr. Neaves is whipped !

He has a fat case of transferrence and has autobiographically authored a "case study" of himself....he probably endures "hives" often when his "partner" is displeased with him for a myriad of reasons.
 
Sassylassie
#46
Yep I agree Curio, verbal vomit.
 
Ariadne
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by SassylassieView Post

Yep I agree Curio, verbal vomit.

I think I've discovered the study group that Nick used for his thoughts:

"A mother helped plot the drowning deaths of her three children to preserve her relationship with the man who killed them, prosecutors said in closing arguments Wednesday in the woman's murder trial.
Prosecutor Roger Simpson said Amanda Hamm, 30, has low self-esteem and needed a man to "validate her existence."
Hamm faces life in prison if convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Christopher Hamm, 6, Austin Brown, 3, and Kyleigh Hamm, 23 months. The children died after Hamm's car sank at a Clinton Lake boat ramp on September 2, 2003. - DECATUR, Illinois (more at link)

us.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/06/dro....ap/index.html (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

47
what do men really know about women?
by kiwi_NZ | Jul 20th, 2009
10
11
Why women cry
by diamond lady | Sep 9th, 2008
no new posts