tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700551958133555913.post949804048872841036..comments2009-11-02T09:25:10.288-05:00Comments on Book Quotes: Men are naturally betterSean Hannifinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11754499128178916466noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700551958133555913.post-6852550825009080982009-05-05T14:28:00.000-05:002009-05-05T14:28:00.000-05:00Well, I don't believe (and the book really doesn't...Well, I don't believe (and the book really doesn't argue) that men are truly "naturally better" ... that was just to make the title catchy. :D That wouldn't really be a very nice thing to say, and psychologically women are of course just a capable as men to do just about anything.<br /><br />From a biblical viewpoint, I'd say Genesis, whether or not it's taken literally, shows that we humans <I>see</I> and saw men as the dominant sex for a very long time. Similarly, in the New Testament, God sent <I>a son</I>. Why not a daughter? Though I suppose there are some religions in which the "God" is considered to be a female, doesn't that <I>change</I> how that god is perceived by believers? It doesn't imply that the society of believer would necessarily be matriarchal.<br /><br />The book really doesn't seek to answer <I>why</I> humans are patriarchal, rather it says "the species with which we share ancestral background are patriarchal, and all of our societies seem to be too, so this probably isn't a societal thing, it's a natural species thing."<br /><br />A "patriarchal" society of course doesn't imply that women are "worse" or unneeded, it just means the men have more power in the family units, and perhaps the larger community as a whole (president of the USA?). And this doesn't mean that there aren't families in which the mother is "dominant" ... it's talking about the societies as units themselves.<br /><br />Physical strength may have something to do with it, but most likely there's something psychological too, as men and women <I>do</I> have psychological differences. Perhaps power tends to be more important to men?Sean Hannifinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11754499128178916466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2700551958133555913.post-8379951355357124962009-05-05T05:54:00.000-05:002009-05-05T05:54:00.000-05:00This is the point at which you read Luke Anthony S...This is the point at which you read Luke Anthony Sawczak's "Divinities" ( http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/divinities/527578 )! :)<br /><br />If we must get really biblical about it, our best evidence is that God created man first. (Then he pulled a chunk of man out to make woman. Kinda disadvantages man.) Later, they become "one flesh". This implies that in some way, they are both lacking completion, namely in something found in the other ... Perchance. ?<br /><br />From a different standard psychological viewpoint, there's the "active" and "passive" roles, a subject and an object, and (to refer to your circular logic stuff in a blog post) you might as well say that the one in the active role is there because... they are. If women were the natural active role--except they can't be due to the nature of the word "woman"--would they be--ah! but they are--<br /><br />In some respects, it's reasoned that on a basic non-advanced level, e.g. strength, versatility, sexual position, the male is naturally the one in the active role. However, in our reality, most of the things we do, or require done, each day are totally doable by women with equal or better prowess than men. (Men don't, for example, necessarily make better accountants, graceful trampolinists, chefs, presidents, and so on.)<br /><br />So while men may be "naturally better" in a traditional (and probably historically universal) sense, the fields in which they are, are becoming not more relevant than the fields in which women are.Luke Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777867493834448462noreply@blogger.com