Why does society not trust women?

[kabbes]

Explicit attitudes are tested by asking people what they think.
Implicit attitudes are tested by using an Implicit Association Test.

A computer-based measure, the IAT requires that users rapidly categorize two target concepts with an attribute (e.g. the concepts "male" and "female" with the attribute "logical"), such that easier pairings (faster responses) are interpreted as more strongly associated in memory than more difficult pairings (slower responses).[1]

The IAT is thought to measure implicit attitudes: "introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward social objects."[5] In research, the IAT has been used to develop theories to understand implicit cognition (i.e. cognitive processes of which a person has no conscious awareness).

Generally speaking, implicit attitudes tend to be better predictors of behaviour than explicit attitudes. And the two can be widely divergent. We think we know our own minds but in many cases we really don't.

 

[campanula]

Many sperm and one ova. The undeniable ability to bear a child, to carry on a dynasty, to construct a bloodline or lineage or even just to raise productive units of labour does tend to leave men a bit redundant...and compensating accordingly...eroding matriarchal power by militaristic shenanigans and capitalistic ownership.
Obviously, just a random thought off the top of my head and not some deeply researched analysis but biology often resists social construction and politics (inasmuch as every child knows who their mother is - while fathers, less so).

 

[cheesethief]

Many sperm and one ova. The undeniable ability to bear a child, to carry on a dynasty, to construct a bloodline or lineage or even just to raise productive units of labour does tend to leave men a bit redundant...and compensating accordingly...eroding matriarchal power by militaristic shenanigans and capitalistic ownership.
Obviously, just a random thought off the top of my head and not some deeply researched analysis but biology often resists social construction and politics (inasmuch as every child knows who their mother is - while fathers, less so).

Whilst issues of women being the only gender who can get pregnant & give birth are hard to overcome, one would hope in a truly equal future the assumption that raising children is predominantly a female task will fade away. It's that kind of assumption that damages women's careers, whilst impeding men who'd like to spend more time raising their kids from doing so.

 

[trabuquera]

Because as women's voices are raised (and more often now than previously) to point out injustice or unfairness, it fritzes male synapses, because most men (even patriarchal men - and in fact most humans generally) want to believe they themselves are fair and just. Those women must be lying because things surely can't be as bad as they say, right? A partner can't have just hit her 'for no reason'. She can't have been harassed and tormented just because some guys wanted some fun. It can't be true that life is massively unfair and that no formula has yet been found to keep humanity reproducing while providing justice for all. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: women are inferior because their word can't be trusted and their word can't be trusted because they are inferior.

For most of human history women were simply described as "like children" - ie you can be fond of them, even love them or fight for them, yet not rate them as fully equal rational humans who need to be listened to. And that's where they weren't or aren't considered as "like slaves", ie chattel in human form, to be traded at will.

Also the "weapons of the weak" thing - if women aren't or weren't encouraged to fight their corner physically, verbal resistance was all, which meant cancelling their words out became more vital than ever. (I think Mary Beard's most latest book is a lot about this, about women's words and how they are silenced).

 

[Gromit]

Many sperm and one ova. The undeniable ability to bear a child, to carry on a dynasty, to construct a bloodline or lineage or even just to raise productive units of labour does tend to leave men a bit redundant...and compensating accordingly...eroding matriarchal power by militaristic shenanigans and capitalistic ownership.
Obviously, just a random thought off the top of my head and not some deeply researched analysis but biology often resists social construction and politics (inasmuch as every child knows who their mother is - while fathers, less so).

Women might be the only ones who can bear children but men are the only ones who can provide sperm. Whether it comes in a test tube or not it still came from a man you dozey twat.

Women can have one pregnancy at a time. Men can impregnate hundreds of women in the same time. Thousands if we're talking test tubes.

So fuck your women give life bollocks used for centuries to somehow one up men. It takes two to tango as much as you might want to deny it.

 

[cheesethief]

Women might be the only ones who can bear children but men are the only ones who can provide sperm. Whether it comes in a test tube or not it still came from a man you dozey twat.

Women can have one pregnancy at a time. Men can impregnate hundreds of women in the same time. Thousands if we're talking test tubes.

So fuck your women give life bollocks used for centuries to somehow one up men. It takes two to tango as much as you might want to deny it.

You seem to be easily riled, are you prone to insecurity?

 

[Beats & Pieces]

Many sperm and one ova. The undeniable ability to bear a child, to carry on a dynasty, to construct a bloodline or lineage or even just to raise productive units of labour does tend to leave men a bit redundant...and compensating accordingly...eroding matriarchal power by militaristic shenanigans and capitalistic ownership.
Obviously, just a random thought off the top of my head and not some deeply researched analysis but biology often resists social construction and politics (inasmuch as every child knows who their mother is - while fathers, less so).

Ironically, this is exactly the kind of position Jordan Peterson would take. And that isn't a good thing.

That said, the thread title appears as a question for which there is no evidence likely to be available. Pointless, except in order to allow some posturing.

 

[izz]

Yeah yeah blame men. The truth is that it's women who don't trust other women to be honest not us simple men folk.

Man says "I want cheese"
Woman 1 interprets that as "He wants cheese"

Woman 2 says "I want cheese"
Woman 1 asks herself "what did she mean by that? is inferring that I my offering wasn't good enough, is that a reference to my outfit? Is she saying it's cheesy? etc etc etc"

This is part of the problem. The over developed communication centers of women's brains that add unnecessary extra layers to coms.

no, that is simply incorrect.

 

[Sea Star]

Women might be the only ones who can bear children but men are the only ones who can provide sperm. Whether it comes in a test tube or not it still came from a man you dozey twat.

Women can have one pregnancy at a time. Men can impregnate hundreds of women in the same time. Thousands if we're talking test tubes.

So fuck your women give life bollocks used for centuries to somehow one up men. It takes two to tango as much as you might want to deny it.

What about sperm banks?

 

[8ball]

What about sperm banks?

They're making quite rapid progress with in vitro gestation, so in the future they'll be able to artificially inseminate eggs (robots can do the work), grow embryo in a box, extract gonads, get gametes from gonads, mature gametes, artificially inseminate again, rinse, repeat, etc.

No need for all of those extraneous delivery and incubation systems attached to the gonads that go about despoiling the environment and arguing on the internet.

Efficiency. Finally.

 

[Beats & Pieces]

What about sperm banks?

What about the children?

 

[Sea Star]

What about the children?

Too much whataboutery!

 

[Beats & Pieces]

Too much whataboutery!

This thread is based on that very point. You could map the development in advance.

 

[Gromit]

What about sperm banks?

Still stocked by men. They don't grow the sperm on sperm trees.

 

[campanula]

Ironically, this is exactly the kind of position Jordan Peterson would take. And that isn't a good thing.

I have no idea who Jordan Peterson is...but using equivalent statements made by someone else, as being 'not a good thing', with no further explication, strikes me as rather flimsy analysis, Beats. Nonetheless, Gromit's frothing notwithstanding, it occurs to me that the politics of reproduction and rearing offer some definite insights regarding issues of control and exercise of power...without resorting to value judgments or exclusion (or wishing to 'one up men'.
Regarding Gromit's assessment ('it takes two to tango'): if we are attempting some sort of equivalence here, I am hard pressed to see any equality of effort in the pre-birth arena at least...but it might have been unwise (on my part) to emphasise the ova rather than the enormity of the process...

It's true though - this thread is a bit focus-free and vague...a definite invitation to ramble on

 

[Beats & Pieces]

I have no idea who Jordan Peterson is...but using equivalent statements made by someone else, as being 'not a good thing', with no further explication, strikes me as rather flimsy analysis, Beats. Nonetheless, Gromit's frothing notwithstanding, it occurs to me that the politics of reproduction and rearing offer some definite insights regarding issues of control and exercise of power...without resorting to value judgments or exclusion (or wishing to 'one up men'.
Regarding Gromit's assessment ('it takes two to tango'): if we are attempting some sort of equivalence here, I am hard pressed to see any equality of effort in the pre-birth arena at least...but it might have been unwise (on my part) to emphasise the ova rather than the enormity of the process...

It's true though - this thread is a bit focus-free and vague...a definite invitation to ramble on

Peterson is the current 'go to guy' in popular discourse deemed to be against - well at this point it becomes hard to discern anything beyond mere reactionary politics. He is, however, often attempting to situate his position in a concrete biological apparatus and determinism - beyond and outside anything 'socially constructed' (a phrase likely to send him in to orbit).

I find Peterson's particular structuring of the post-modern especially problematic - he has a particular animus against Foucault (often described as a Marxist / Neo-Marxist) - which lacks any grounding in a reading of primary material.

He's a populist. And that is scary and not a good thing.

 

[Cloo]

In the great scheme of things, it's only VERY recently that women have been regarded as anything like equal. From ancient times until not so long ago, men and women had very different, and clearly defined, roles.

Well, I often say, we are only just getting over millennia of women being chattel (hence obsession with women's looks when he main value was marriagability)

mojo pixy - sorry you had such an awful experience of family courts, which I understand is pretty common and I also think is a problem of a patriarchal society (ie, it's not proof, as some claim, that 'men get oppressed by women, too'). In a society where woman is the default caregiver, the one area she is trusted with is childrearing/housekeeping and from that we get men sidelined in custody proceedings, sometimes when they are a more suitable caregiver than the mother. The mild end of this is those adverts or comedy shows where men are shown as unable to cope with looking after the kids or managing the house. The downer of this for women is again, just as men aren't trusted with the domestic stuff, we're still not trusted with power at work.

Mr White Middle Aged Guy becomes CEO of a business, and it is generally assumed he's competent, even if he's a total ass, because our idea of a CEO is a White Middle Aged Guy, and it's so conditioned that you will often get women or black people admitting that they felt uncertain of the skills of respectively a new female or black boss. Commonly, when a woman becomes CEO, and she has to *prove* she's competent, she is scrutinised for slip-ups etc.

Yeah campanula this thread is vague... it was stuff swirling around in my head when I couldn't sleep last night. I'm probably going to bed quite soon, on fact!

 

[butchersapron]

Peterson is the current 'go to guy' in popular discourse deemed to be against - well at this point it becomes hard to discern anything beyond mere reactionary politics. He is, however, often attempting to situate his position in a concrete biological apparatus and determinism - beyond and outside anything 'socially constructed' (a phrase likely to send him in to orbit).

I find Peterson's particular structuring of the post-modern especially problematic - he has a particular animus against Foucault (often described as a Marxist / Neo-Marxist) - which lacks any grounding in a reading of primary material.

He's a populist. And that is scary and not a good thing.

Why do you write like you have no understanding of the things that you're writing about?

 

[stethoscope]

Peterson is the current 'go to guy' in popular discourse deemed to be against - well at this point it becomes hard to discern anything beyond mere reactionary politics. He is, however, often attempting to situate his position in a concrete biological apparatus and determinism - beyond and outside anything 'socially constructed' (a phrase likely to send him in to orbit).

I find Peterson's particular structuring of the post-modern especially problematic - he has a particular animus against Foucault (often described as a Marxist / Neo-Marxist) - which lacks any grounding in a reading of primary material.

He's a populist. And that is scary and not a good thing.

Another post that manages to say not much whilst giving the pretence of being really clever

 

[campanula]

He is, however, often attempting to situate his position in a concrete biological apparatus and determinism - beyond and outside anything 'socially constructed' (a phrase likely to send him in to orbit).

I can't say I have any problem with concrete biological apparatus...but it is ridiculous to separate biology from how the body is perceived, objectified, exploited.

I find Peterson's particular structuring of the post-modern especially problematic

Um, well yes, I do myself (retreats from P&P in cowardly consternation before forced to reveal that my 1992 readings of Foucault...or pretty much anyone else, tbh, has long vanished from my brain).

 

[campanula]

[QUOTE="Cloo, post: 15460460, member: 14"

Yeah campanula this thread is vague... it was stuff swirling around in my head when I couldn't sleep last night. I'm probably going to bed quite soon, on fact![/QUOTE]

Well, there is a lot of stuff to cover, tbf, Cloo.

 

[Beats & Pieces]

Why do you write like you have no understanding of the things that you're writing about?

If you want to argue and present a position for Foucault as a Neo-Marxist or Marxist then go ahead, open a new thread.

 

[Beats & Pieces]

Another post that manages to say not much whilst giving the pretence of being really clever

Oh look, another post by you saying nothing.

 

[The39thStep]

How do we explain the growth of gender studies courses at universities in a patriarchal society ?

 

[Beats & Pieces]

How do we explain the growth of gender studies courses at universities in a patriarchal society ?

A sense of humour?

 

[VeganMight]

Beats & Pieces wears (or, at least, has worn) round glasses in a bid to appear intelligent. This is a known fact.

 

[8ball]

Beats & Pieces wears (or, at least, has worn) round glasses in a bid to appear intelligent. This is a known fact.

Round glasses rarely make one look more intelligent.

 

[Beats & Pieces]

Beats & Pieces wears (or, at least, has worn) round glasses in a bid to appear intelligent. This is a known fact.

Oh really? Prove it, provide evidence.

Good luck with that.

 

[VeganMight]

Oh really? Prove it, provide evidence.

Good luck with that.

You fucking do though. Otherwise, you'd have just denied it. Haystacks - Eviscerate him. Or something. But don't think I've forgot you're supposed to be murdering me butchersapron ..Ya big old fanny. And shagger of birds with fat ankles.

 

[VeganMight]

Women as homemaker and men as 'provider' is a relatively recent invention.

You're not wrong there 'stacks - And, tangentially, it always used to annoy my mam that, apparently, women only started working in the 1960's - Working class women were working since jobs existed - And what existed before then? That's what you're gettin at there, eh 'stacks? (eh, stacks, Haystacks, geddit lol?) Nah, but you're right though, people (male or female) weren't always just yoked to a single role..