If you look at it things are exactly that. Males and females have most of the same organs. If we took out those different organs we would be exactly the same. If you think about it balls are like enlarged clit and a vagina is like a inside out dick. Also you think men are the ones telling women what to do and look like? You are very wrong. The one that tells women what is pretty is other insecure females. Since women are made to compete no matter what so are still held to higher standards as they must drive to find a man before the other women. Any threat the bitches destroy. So the kinder of the gender are made to suffer. It is plain as day. Everything in biology says that women are made to care for children. Biology will also show that men are made to be strong and hunt and protect. I do not care what culture says. That has nothing to do with this biological evidence. Another thing you are missing is women have XX and men have XY and all men started as females at one point in the womb. So yes a lady is a man with out a dick. Men are built to be sturdy and women are made to be pretty. I know you want to go by your ideals but I am basing this off biology.
What resources are you basing your opinion on? Because I am not basing anything off of my *own* ideals. I'm basing it off of dozens of studies, research, multiple of feminist theorists in the area of research, my degree in both psychology and women's and gender studies, and a minor degree in LGBTQ studies.
You wrote, "Also you think men are the ones telling women what to do and look like? You are very wrong. The one that tells women what is pretty is other insecure females. Since women are made to compete no matter what so are still held to higher standards as they must drive to find a man before the other women."
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Men have told women what is masculine and feminine for thousands of years. Men have used religion, business, and there political power for several centuries to control women. They used arguments similar to what you're saying, that they did "research" to determine that men were stronger, and that God said that women were naturally inclined to be mothers. But in reality, there is no "maternal instinct". Women passed that along to other women throughout the centuries that there was one because men in political and religious power told women that that's how it was. Because that what men wanted, someone to serve them, be their house slave, and rear their children.
As for biology, I think you're still a little backwards. You're still saying "it's just biology" but as I said before, you're missing "why". What I was saying was that biology mutated over time to make men have upper-body strength. We did not always start out that way. Our ancestors went through thousands of mutations, adaptations, and genetic blending before we became the humans we are today. Men became physically stronger because they saw women as "missing" something. So men went out to hunt, and continued this for thousands of years, while the women gathered, and continued for thousands of years. Eventually, over time, men started to become more physical stronger from birth, though women's upper bodies did not grow the way men's did. Eventually, when we started to become homo sapien sapiens, and form religion, politics, economics, and power, men took the reigns because they were seen as physically stronger.
My point is, the whole process of men being stronger could have been the other way around. If women back then looked at their bodies and said, "these (men) have something on their body that shouldn't be there because it doesn't look mine" they perhaps they would have been the hunters, and men would have been the gatherers. But it didn't happen that way.
Also, according to many theorists, the roles of gender were actually reversed in history. For centuries, men were seen as "beautiful" and frail while women were the "aggressive" or "strong" beings. You should do some more reading on some of that.
I also would like to point out that medical research has been completely androcentric until literally maybe 10 years ago? For as long as medical research has been around, research was always done on men. Never women. Did you know it was until a little over ten years that we discovered that men and women have heart attacks differently? I'd also like to note that as someone whose done statistical studies and case studies in my pursuit of my psych degree, not all "research" is unbiased. In fact, it's incredibly easy to fudge the numbers or change any experiment to have the results you want. If someone came to me tomorrow, and said, "If you can prove that cigarettes DON'T cause cancer, I'll give you a millionaire dollars." I'd be a millionaire. It's not difficult at all, you just have to know how to manipulate the study. Which is what many people have done throughout history. It was done to Jews during the Holocaust to "prove" they were dumber, weaker, and not even human, as it was to people of color during the civil rights movements, homosexuals in the 1930s, and yes... women. They do this "research" because some greedy son of a gun wants to make money. And the majority of business owners, political power, and religious influence in the world today- they are men. I don't think it's a coincidence that men doing "research" had "proved" that women were meant to be beautiful, frail, and maternal.
I think you should see both sides of the research before you choose which you believe to be true. Lord knows I have... for almost 8 years now. But you have to have an open mind about it. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but trust me- I know many men that were like you. And after some people actually took a women's studies course, or read some feminists theorists, or even just watched some feminism videos on YouTube, they understood that men are the ones overpowering women. Not other women being "bitches" to each other.
Its a science book. We were taught the anatomy of people. It listed all the bones and all of the organs. It had diagrams of all the body parts. Yeah this books is not 10 years old. So that means it is still correct. However if you insist on saying anatomy is a lie why don't you go find me something proving women do not have ovaries. If you actually pay attention the ones making other women insecure is other women. Are you saying men run the supermodel industry? No I do not think they do. The head of it is other women. You are an idiot to think men think a chick that looks like a skeleton is very attractive to most men. Please go find me 10 men that say they want a 80 pound grown women. Where is your research? How about I do a survey and we see what the men think? Something is wrong with you if you think women should look this way.
I already gave you my research. It was the first post I replied with. You can read Simone de Beavior, Monique Wittig, bell hooks, Kate Bornstein. You should most definitely read, "One is Not Born a Woman". A very famous writing.
I think you have completely missed the point of the argument I was making. And you've also managed to twist everything I said to make accusations about me that are not true. I never said I think 80 pounds women are attractive or anything like that. I personally don't. But I do think you would find at least 10 men that would say it is. And a lot more than that. But that's completely irrelevant to anything I was debating with you about.
Anyways, I'm done with this conversation. I'm not going to continue a battle of wits when my opponent is unarmed.
Is it normal to find a girl super hot?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
If you look at it things are exactly that. Males and females have most of the same organs. If we took out those different organs we would be exactly the same. If you think about it balls are like enlarged clit and a vagina is like a inside out dick. Also you think men are the ones telling women what to do and look like? You are very wrong. The one that tells women what is pretty is other insecure females. Since women are made to compete no matter what so are still held to higher standards as they must drive to find a man before the other women. Any threat the bitches destroy. So the kinder of the gender are made to suffer. It is plain as day. Everything in biology says that women are made to care for children. Biology will also show that men are made to be strong and hunt and protect. I do not care what culture says. That has nothing to do with this biological evidence. Another thing you are missing is women have XX and men have XY and all men started as females at one point in the womb. So yes a lady is a man with out a dick. Men are built to be sturdy and women are made to be pretty. I know you want to go by your ideals but I am basing this off biology.
--
A-Hor
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What resources are you basing your opinion on? Because I am not basing anything off of my *own* ideals. I'm basing it off of dozens of studies, research, multiple of feminist theorists in the area of research, my degree in both psychology and women's and gender studies, and a minor degree in LGBTQ studies.
You wrote, "Also you think men are the ones telling women what to do and look like? You are very wrong. The one that tells women what is pretty is other insecure females. Since women are made to compete no matter what so are still held to higher standards as they must drive to find a man before the other women."
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Men have told women what is masculine and feminine for thousands of years. Men have used religion, business, and there political power for several centuries to control women. They used arguments similar to what you're saying, that they did "research" to determine that men were stronger, and that God said that women were naturally inclined to be mothers. But in reality, there is no "maternal instinct". Women passed that along to other women throughout the centuries that there was one because men in political and religious power told women that that's how it was. Because that what men wanted, someone to serve them, be their house slave, and rear their children.
As for biology, I think you're still a little backwards. You're still saying "it's just biology" but as I said before, you're missing "why". What I was saying was that biology mutated over time to make men have upper-body strength. We did not always start out that way. Our ancestors went through thousands of mutations, adaptations, and genetic blending before we became the humans we are today. Men became physically stronger because they saw women as "missing" something. So men went out to hunt, and continued this for thousands of years, while the women gathered, and continued for thousands of years. Eventually, over time, men started to become more physical stronger from birth, though women's upper bodies did not grow the way men's did. Eventually, when we started to become homo sapien sapiens, and form religion, politics, economics, and power, men took the reigns because they were seen as physically stronger.
My point is, the whole process of men being stronger could have been the other way around. If women back then looked at their bodies and said, "these (men) have something on their body that shouldn't be there because it doesn't look mine" they perhaps they would have been the hunters, and men would have been the gatherers. But it didn't happen that way.
Also, according to many theorists, the roles of gender were actually reversed in history. For centuries, men were seen as "beautiful" and frail while women were the "aggressive" or "strong" beings. You should do some more reading on some of that.
I also would like to point out that medical research has been completely androcentric until literally maybe 10 years ago? For as long as medical research has been around, research was always done on men. Never women. Did you know it was until a little over ten years that we discovered that men and women have heart attacks differently? I'd also like to note that as someone whose done statistical studies and case studies in my pursuit of my psych degree, not all "research" is unbiased. In fact, it's incredibly easy to fudge the numbers or change any experiment to have the results you want. If someone came to me tomorrow, and said, "If you can prove that cigarettes DON'T cause cancer, I'll give you a millionaire dollars." I'd be a millionaire. It's not difficult at all, you just have to know how to manipulate the study. Which is what many people have done throughout history. It was done to Jews during the Holocaust to "prove" they were dumber, weaker, and not even human, as it was to people of color during the civil rights movements, homosexuals in the 1930s, and yes... women. They do this "research" because some greedy son of a gun wants to make money. And the majority of business owners, political power, and religious influence in the world today- they are men. I don't think it's a coincidence that men doing "research" had "proved" that women were meant to be beautiful, frail, and maternal.
I think you should see both sides of the research before you choose which you believe to be true. Lord knows I have... for almost 8 years now. But you have to have an open mind about it. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but trust me- I know many men that were like you. And after some people actually took a women's studies course, or read some feminists theorists, or even just watched some feminism videos on YouTube, they understood that men are the ones overpowering women. Not other women being "bitches" to each other.
--
1000yrVampireKing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Its a science book. We were taught the anatomy of people. It listed all the bones and all of the organs. It had diagrams of all the body parts. Yeah this books is not 10 years old. So that means it is still correct. However if you insist on saying anatomy is a lie why don't you go find me something proving women do not have ovaries. If you actually pay attention the ones making other women insecure is other women. Are you saying men run the supermodel industry? No I do not think they do. The head of it is other women. You are an idiot to think men think a chick that looks like a skeleton is very attractive to most men. Please go find me 10 men that say they want a 80 pound grown women. Where is your research? How about I do a survey and we see what the men think? Something is wrong with you if you think women should look this way.
--
A-Hor
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I already gave you my research. It was the first post I replied with. You can read Simone de Beavior, Monique Wittig, bell hooks, Kate Bornstein. You should most definitely read, "One is Not Born a Woman". A very famous writing.
I think you have completely missed the point of the argument I was making. And you've also managed to twist everything I said to make accusations about me that are not true. I never said I think 80 pounds women are attractive or anything like that. I personally don't. But I do think you would find at least 10 men that would say it is. And a lot more than that. But that's completely irrelevant to anything I was debating with you about.
Anyways, I'm done with this conversation. I'm not going to continue a battle of wits when my opponent is unarmed.