• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Is male chauvinism justifiable?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PsychedelicJellyfish

PsychedelicJellyfish

formerly R. New
Yes, I know that in this day and age chauvinism is not exactly a good thing, seeing as we have ways of letting anyone do anything.
However, from an evolutionary point of view, it’s perfectly justified. Men are, on average, faster, stronger, tougher and bigger than women. These are perfect adaptations for going out and hunting, protecting the family, or collecting firewood while the women stay at home and looked after the kids. Women, on the other hand, are blessed with a lot more emotional sensitivity than men, which is perfect for dealing with children who bombard their parents with a myriad of problems. In almost every species there is a dominant sex. In humans it’s the male.
For all you Creationists, it’s also justified in the Bible (yes, I have a Bible):

"To the woman he said: 'I will increase your labour and your groaning, and in labour you shall bear children. You shall be eager for your husband, and he shall be your master.'"
- Genesis 3:16

So, yeah, it’s pretty well justified from both viewpoints. My view is that chauvinism is unacceptable socially but perfectly acceptable otherwise, if that makes sense. Men no longer have to go out and kill a deer, fight off a lion or carry large amounts of wood around, so there are few jobs which are gender-specific, which allows men and women to perform tasks more equally. It's all still there in our genes, though.

Anyway, feel free to shoot down my views and point out things I’ve missed, then turn this into a flame war, then an Evolution vs. Creation flame war, then get this thread closed.
 
T

Thadine

Altaria Trainer
Men may be dominant, but both sexes are equal to each other. Remember that the Yin and Yang are balanced? Either way, it doesn't excuse male chauvinism at all.
 
G

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
well it's really a belief and beliefs that can't be disproven logically are about as justified as morals.

different strokes for different folks.
 
H

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
While men are more equipped for hunting and such, how much of that do we actually do in modern society? Aside from sport. The popular jobs of today are just as accessible to women as they are to men. And men can easily take care of children. Women do tend to be a little more emotionally sensative, but our brains are more alike than they are different. Evolution is a continual process. Things progress. Women entering the workforce is progression, not regression.

And I don't agree with everything in the Bible, either. I believe that teaching came from the society of that day, not God.
 
H

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
While men are more equipped for hunting and such, how much of that do we actually do in modern society? Aside from sport. The popular jobs of today are just as accessible to women as they are to men. And men can easily take care of children. Women do tend to be a little more emotionally sensative, but our brains are more alike than they are different. Evolution is a continual process. Things progress. Women entering the workforce is progression, not regression.

And I don't agree with everything in the Bible, either. I believe that teaching came from the society of that day, not God.
 
G

Gibbis

Read it,READ IT!
Depends on said woman or man

If said male was a gimpy flabby unarmed 100 lbs 5.1 fella and said woman was phyiscally stronger then it should be the woman


However if the man was a 6.6 300 pounds of muscle and said woman was a 5.2 70 libs then its clearly the man
 
E

Elite Lord Sigma

Absent Professor
No. Chauvinism and evolutionary and/or creationist standards have nothing at all to do with one another, so I see no reason to connect them. The former is a social concept, but the latter two are scientific and theological concepts; they are in no way the same.
 
S

Strants

Well-Known Member
Well. . . I have to say yes, with an if.

You hire people because they have credentials. If a man is more muscular than a woman, and is being hired for heavy lifting, there is not point in giving the woman a job. It actually seems like borderline sexism, giving a person a job just because they are female.

On the other hand, if the man is unfit and the the woman is benching 300 pounds, then the woman gets the job. But, because evolutionally men are often more fit than woman, a heavy lifting job with mostly men hardly seems unfair.
 
S

SHUCKLE MAN

98th
Well, this is how the whole 'Men dominating over women' thing began. If you put 9 baby girls and a baby boy in a room, kept them alive, but gave them no contact with the outside world (so they knew of nothing other than the room they were in), after they all hit puberty, all 9 girls will be pregnant (if fertile), and the man will be the 'leader'.

In today's organized society, we don't have situations like this. Women being weaker and smaller than men no longer proves such a great disadvantage, and in the future, it is likely to be of no disadvantage at all.

Also, other translations of Genesis 3:16 are...

"Unto the woman, he (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

"Unto the mother he (God) said, I will greatly increase thy discomfort, thy size, thy suffering and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy lust shall be to thy husband, and he shall have thee."

The first translation is supposedly as accuractely translated as possible, the second one has had some human intervention apparently (it says that in the front of the Bible, so they're not hiding anything). The first part of the verse is referring to the suffering a woman experiences during pregnancy. The "he shall have thee" in the second translation still suggests man's domination, because it doesn't say anywhere that the woman shall also have the man, but the "he shall have thee" could also be referring to the man's lust of the woman and the woman's lust of the man. And to an extent, if you lust after someone, they do rule you (as you do a lot to 'have' them). And finally, the second translation shows that the relationship described there may be referring to married couples, rather than to males and females in society/

Ultimately, you can make anything in the Bible say anything you want, so...
 
PsychedelicJellyfish

PsychedelicJellyfish

formerly R. New
If I may attempt to clarify my stance on chauvinism, I believe that chauvinism is an antiquated idea and should no longer be practised. However, I wanted to point out that chauvinism is technically 'justifiable' under two of humanity's main viewpoints.

(I got my version of Genesis 3:16 from the New English Bible, if that helps. Somehow.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top