Sorry, but women are dependent on men

[CDNBear]

I always find it very funny when a male pens an essay on women and what they "Deem" us to be or not to be that is the question. Let us be honest most men will go to their grave never understanding the female mind, like their father's fathers. It's the cycle of life, confuse the males for a life time, all women know this from birth. Otherwise this man's article is tripe, he's just mad he's not getten any. :laughing7:

lol Sass. But I dissagree, not on your opinion of the article, I agree with that. But more the predetermined act of confusing the male of the species.

I see in many relationships that have gone off the tracks, that very phylosophy, but in ones that work and are HEALTHY, there is an equal balance dependence. More so, there are safe guards to ensure the survival of that relationship with or without both partners present. The first and fore most should be a balance in responsiblity and input.

Some realtionships rely on one partner to make all the decissions, is that healthy, not realy. Somewhere in life that person lost their ablity to think for themselves or take a stand on their own behalf. Like wise, where did the alpha get the sense of self that would produce such an over riding phylosophy?

My marriage wasn't supposed to last a year according to Boo's relatives. Because 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.

That is equality.

 

[Sassylassie]

Great post Bear, gotta get back to work. Sobbing loudly.

 

[Curiosity]

These are great posts

I love the topic - the age old argument between the X and Y folk....

I think we consider "dependence" as having much more negative that positive - as if we are supposed to be independent of each other we men and women....

I like to think in terms of couple-dom as interdependence and I love that there are many things my husband could do for both of us that were heroic in my mind because I could never accomplish the many things he did without having to think about them..... fixing the sprinkler system, pruning all the trees just right....chemicals in the pool the formula I could never get right - building a wonderful dining room set with inlaid pieces of wood which caused my friends to gasp when they saw it..... portions of his interdependence and gifts to me were our lives together...just as I did those things I could contribute ....because I could do them well .... while he preferred not to have to do them.... all of these things were unplanned and unspoken as we fell into the traditional roles in a family unit which felt just fine and neither of us had to feel it necessary to change...

 

[Zzarchov]

Man gets woman pregnant, expects woman to incubate sperm, give birth, raise child, and treat man like adolescent offspring. Sounds pretty much like dependence to me too.

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.

 

[sanctus]

I always find it very funny when a male pens an essay on women and what they "Deem" us to be or not to be that is the question. Let us be honest most men will go to their grave never understanding the female mind, like their father's fathers. It's the cycle of life, confuse the males for a life time, all women know this from birth. Otherwise this man's article is tripe, he's just mad he's not getten any. :laughing7:

But you could say the same about women in regards to understanding men. It is age old and eternal, that both sexes approach the same thing from totally different terms of understanding.

 

[sanctus]

Exactly. If a man's wife goes out of town, she not only has to pre-cook dinners for the time that she is away, but she has to label which day they should be eaten (as though it makes a difference) because the man is too helpless to know what to do without that level of instructions.

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.

 

[tracy]

As much as I dissagree with the article. It confuses me as to how you came to dissagree with it, seeing as your stance on support is the pretty much the same premise as the articles.

Woman has child, man must support her in her choices. Sounds pretty much like dependence to me.

The CHILD is dependent on his or her parents. Believing that doesn't mean you think women are dependent on men.

I thought the article was a little funny. I have generally made more money than the men I date. I make more than twice what my current sweetie does. I have also never been one of those girls who goes through a man's email fearing he's cheating on me. I couldn't see myself in much of that article at all...

 

[Sassylassie]

Did ya ever notice that most essays on females lumps us all together like a herd of cows? No two females are alike unless their twins, he generalizes females and I'd hazard a guess the only female in this sad sacks life is his MaMa. I like Tracy didn't see any glimpses of moi in his article, my mother is over sixty and she's never fit into the traditional mold of wife and mother. My sister's lament that she's not grandmother material because she doesn't bake cookies and knit mittens, good grief isn't that what Walmarts for. Chances are this fella will never know how varied females are, would any single female on this forum date someone with such a narrow view of our sex?

 

[CDNBear]

Did ya ever notice that most essays on females lumps us all together like a herd of cows? No two females are alike unless their twins, he generalizes females and I'd hazard a guess the only female in this sad sacks life is his MaMa. I like Tracy didn't see any glimpses of moi in his article, my mother is over sixty and she's never fit into the traditional mold of wife and mother. My sister's lament that she's not grandmother material because she doesn't bake cookies and knit mittens, good grief isn't that what Walmarts for. Chances are this fella will never know how varied females are, would any single female on this forum date someone with such a narrow view of our sex?

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

 

[Ariadne]

Is this really how you all view this?

I must admit that in my relationship, the dependence is paramount, but one can be removed and the other still functional, as devistating that would be, if it were perminant. We have ensure the survival of the other with both finacial and functional safe guards to succeed in that.

Both of us, as dependent on the other as we are, are still quite capable of operating without the others presence as a crutch. Some of the safe guards we have we brought in to the relationship, ie: self reliance, personal accountablity, well developed sences of self/without being selfish and a strong personal identity.

Perhaps that is why our views in the other thread vary as greatly as they do, you have become to accustomed to the support of the other to function without, do to lacking in other areas prior to your marriage?

I am very independent ... alpha female ... but I appreciate men for their perspective and how it compliments a female perspective - there is a difference, in my opinion. An all female society would be a thoroughly frightening situation, as would an all male society. I suppose men and women depend on each other for many things, but not in the way described by Nick; the pre-school teacher turned rat specialist.

 

[Ariadne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Curiosity]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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