Women naturally inferior?

When looking at the whole history of Man, it is only recently that women have come to be regarded as equal to men. The same strengths, or at least the same potential. Maybe girls have to concentrate a bit harder in the math class than boys. The boys take in the logic easier than the girls. But then the girls are really good at writing essays, communicating, they love languages and to understand the way people think.

There are differences no matter which way we look at it.
But that women should be inferior to men?

Men have since the dawn of civilisation been the providers, they've been physically stronger, hunters. It's just like that. The women were confined to cooking and raising children, making clothes and steadying the home.

Maybe, if it has been like this for thousands of years, maybe it should be this way?

I mean, doesn't our biology determine our behaviour? So our biology has a ready-made social pattern for us and we see this throughout the history of human civilisation.

There may be some exceptions in some deep rain-forests where women hunt with the men or the father has the main responsibility for the children.

Still, this pattern we see says something about different civilisations' relation to eachother and common roots, I think. Different migration groups that have dispersed all over Europe, Asia, Africa and then North-and South-America. We see the pattern among Inkas, Indians, Vikings, Celts, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks. Everything almost.

Are women in a sense naturally inferior? Or is that the wrong question?

Women are naturally inferior to men in many different areas, but men are equally inferior to women in many others. It just so happens that strength and power has been a very important asset in many cultures, and who are the strong and powerful? The men. Women have taken an inferior social status for most of human kinds history due to the fact that the areas that their gender is superior in, havent been as historically important and necessary as those with which the men are naturally superior in. Brute strength has been a deciding factor in shaping societies, men are the ones who shaped them. This doesnt mean that women are inferior in every way to men, just in some. The same goes for the men. Thats what I believe.

I think that it is part of our natural disposition as human beings to at least to a small extent regard women as somewhat inferior. After all, it has been one the near-universal hallmarks across the world for thousands of years (unless, of course, you're an Amazon, but... there are exceptions to every rule, I suppose). I'm not saying that I think that women are and should be considered inferior to men--I'm saying that that is the overwhelming attitude on the subject.

Obviously women are equipped to bear children and focus socially more on the emotions, which makes them generally more equipped to be nuturing parents, and women have a greater tendency to be good at multi-tasking and such, but these things don't really factor into the social equation, which is what you're addressing.

I think that because of the nurturing parent / child-bearing aspect, and the fact that pregnancy is often difficult for the mother and often disrupts her day-to-day life, that it may just not have been practical for women to be socially and functionally equal to men. However, this is just my educated opinion--there may have been many other or totally different factors involved. All I can say is that there is some biological, theological, or (most likely) practical reason why women were placed lower in the hierarchy than men.

Oh Lord. If my history teacher were to come to this topic right now, she would probably be banned for flamming. Dang feminists. >_> They annoy me.

Anyways, it depends what your views on traditional culture. If you view society as to be more traditional, you typically lean tward the nurtering role for women- that is, caring for children and household. If you lean to the more current standards, women are now potrayed as more independant, and less dependant on having a husband to run a house.

I frankly, think each type of role has its up's and down's. I've just recently written a DBQ (document essay thing for AP history) Regarding the effects nationalism had on women's rights. So here is a small summary of what I think.

In the past, and still around in areas around the world, most people thought women should be limited to what they can be involved in. This could include, sufferage, haveing no involvement in politics, and limited acsess in economy. Also, depending on the class of women (by that I mean low,middle, upper)and the time period they all had diffrent means of supplying care for the family. All of them share a commmanality though: They were regarded as less dominant than men. It is a fact, and every nation around the world as implemented this into their culture at one point or another. Barriers for women caused from this idea can be extreamly overwhelming.

While I'm not some crazed feminist, I belive that women should have their rights of course. I do not belive however, in going so overboard that it becomes a matter of almost making men look worthless. Women are not inferior, but let's not cross the line.

I belive in having the mother as the center for child nurtering. Some will dissagree with me, and thats fine. But thats just were my views lie and what kind of family I have been brought up in. I also belive the father has just as much of a role. Its kinda like a team effort, if one spouse does not keep up their responsiblities, the household falls apart. Thus prooving the fact that women do need to have some sort of role at the house. That does not mean they can not be involved in a working job.

I saw something on a magazine article the other day. It had a picture of a woman, carrying a breifcase and in a buisness suit. Holding onto her legs however, were two children dragging around with her. The title of the magazine read: Family getting in the way of work?

I found that discusting. It should be the other way around, work getting in the way of family. That is were I see some of the views of women's roles, and men's roles starting to be blurred by society.

Personally, I see both genders as two parts of the same whole. Men are usually viewed as the stronger the two, which is true to a large extent. They are generally bolder and less inhibited. But without women, men would become even more violent and vulgar than they are now (if you can believe it's possible) because they would not be witness to the femininity that's necessary for peaceful interaction. There would be nothing to hold them back. Thus, the male superiority complex.

Women, on the other hand, are more internal and generally more level-headed. With their generally greater wisdom and sensitivity, they are built for decision-making. However, because of this very sensitivity which gives them strength, they are more prone to emotional collapse. This is where men are beneficial to them: with their more hardened personas, they provide structural support for women on an emotional and psychological level.

In this way, the two are equal and opposite. Without one, the other could not properly survive. Personally, I find the company of women more valuable than that of men... It's their sensitivity that makes them so much easier to get along with. Most of the males I know have this irritating tendency to be vulgar and inconsiderate of those who aren't. Anyway, that's my take on the matter.

Originally Posted by DekuQueen

I saw something on a magazine article the other day. It had a picture of a woman, carrying a breifcase and in a buisness suit. Holding onto her legs however, were two children dragging around with her. The title of the magazine read: Family getting in the way of work?

I found that discusting. It should be the other way around, work getting in the way of family. That is were I see some of the views of women's roles, and men's roles starting to be blurred by society.

You've just reminded me of something I forgot to add to my little speech. I think that because the woman has traditionally been the more dominant parent figure, the one that the sons and daughters go to first, etc. etc., that has had a large influence on women's role in the household and in the workplace in a society that has granted both sexes equal rights.

Btw, I really liked your expression of your opinions as a whole--I've always thought you were good at holding a strong opinion without being obnoxiously opinionated. So, kudos to you.

Women are naturally inferior in some ways, but they have a lot of things they can lord over us too.

For instance, a woman usually has a hard time as a construction worker, a soldier, and other jobs related to manual labor. They also(in my opinion) have a more difficult job when in politics, because their emotions are very much more governing than a man's, so they have a hard time making important decisions.

But, they also have many strong points. Women are better at communicating, so can resolve big problems( my husband didn't kill your dog) easier than a man could. Their emotions are also better used in child-rearing than man's because he'd explode if he had to raise a kid alone. Women also are statistically better at gymnastics and ice skating, so how would we get to see those cool things if men were in charge?

Anyway, no women are not naturally inferior, but neither are we equals. Men and women are just different.

Both men and women are equal because they are both people, but they are different, and it is important to understand that their are things women can do and men can't and things men can do and women can't. I find it really dumb when they lower standards for women in things like firefighting and police, and when they lower standards for men to be things like nurses and language arts teachers. It doesn't create equality it only creates inequality. If someone is not adiquit for a job their is no concevable reason to allow them to work for that job, especially in life or death situations like if my house is burning I only want people who can actually do the job it doesn't matter whether they are male or female, but it is fact that men have higher lung capacity and are physicaly stronger... for the mast part. I raelly don't equaliy should be a issue, no one is equal, it ismosible to be equal, everyone has gifts and everyone has handicaps, one thing I believe is that no one should be superior, but equality doesn't matter.

Hostis of Angelus(Cool name!!), do you mean that men and women are not biologically meant to be equals?

Or maybe, first of all, what does it mean for men and women to be equal?
Are we speaking in a social sense here?

I think somehow that it's wrong to use the word inferior and superior. Different is better.
Complimentary perhaps even. Women and men have qualities that compliment one another.

Originally Posted by DekuQueen

I saw something on a magazine article the other day. It had a picture of a woman, carrying a breifcase and in a buisness suit. Holding onto her legs however, were two children dragging around with her. The title of the magazine read: Family getting in the way of work?

That is really disgusting. That's probably a sign of a change in values. They have allready begun. But prioritising work and education before children is becoming more and more common. Women wait longer and longer with having children.

But isn't it possible that women and men are divided in society, have their own social roles, because of our biology? It is pretty amazing that that divide has existed for many thousands of years. Just a crazy thought: Maybe the new equalization is part of our evolution? For those who adher to evolution that is. :shock:

I apologise for not saying more. I'm in a rush at the moment.

In the Great Binding Law, the 'constitution' of the 6 nations (a group of Native Americans, 6 tribes united as one 'country'), it is stated that not Only to Women have sole rights to property, but only Women can lead a tribe. It is essentially the opposite of traditional ideas about women's rights, and rather seems to turn your hypothesis upside down.

As for what they should/shouldn't do, men are (more often then not) stronger and faster, however, women tend to be more dextrous and intelligent, each has strengths, but limiting what they can/cannot do would mean that the few women who are stronger then men, or men who are smarter then women, would have no chance to contribute to society.

Hostis of Angelus(Cool name!!), do you mean that men and women are not biologically meant to be equals?

(Thanks) and yes. They aren't 'biologically equal' but that's not what I was referring to. Women and men are different enough to be unequal in different fields, so yes they are not equal. They are superior in different things and inferior in others.

Allright. This discussion doesn't really have too much substance and that is m fault. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever to suggest that women are naturally inferior to men in a way that they aren't as good, as valuable and viable as men.

But I found this article from 1954... It's quite interesting.

Excerpt: On the basis of this historical situation, certain false claims regarding the social superiority of the male sex have been propagated. It is often set forth as an immutable axiom that men are socially superior because they are naturally superior. Male supremacy, according to this myth, is not a social phenomenon at a particular stage of history, but a natural law. Men, it is claimed, are endowed by nature with superior physical and mental attributes.

An equivalent myth about women has been propagated to support this claim. It is set forth as an equally immutable axiom that women are socially inferior because they are naturally inferior to men. And what is the proof? They are the mothers! Nature, it is claimed, has condemned the female sex to an inferior status.

The Myth of Women's Inferiority

And more: In primitive society, where women were neither sanctified nor degraded, it was the women who were the social and cultural leaders.

Of course this comes from a Marxistic website so keep in mind that it may be partial some of it.
But still things make a lot of sense. (Only they glorify women a lot!)

Just some food for afterthought.

Originally Posted by Seirbhíseach Dé

Of course this comes from a Marxistic website so keep in mind that it may be partial some of it.
But still things make a lot of sense. (Only they glorify women a lot!)

Just some food for afterthought.

While I agreed with the article as a whole, it is not correct to say that the ideology that women are inferior is a "myth," since it is an ideology, an opinion. It isn't based on any facts; it doesn't need them. The issue of "inferiority vs. superiority vs. equality" is an issue of perception. Quite frankly, I think any discussion of the matter only contributes to any feelings or expression of prejudice. If we did not analyze the social engine as much as we do, we would likely naturally drift toward equality, since no one would be conditioned or pressured to believe one way or the other.

Everybody should read Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. Just because.

There is no better or worse - natural predisposition, maybe, social conventions, perhaps, biological impositions, sure, but you can't quantify the intangible.