English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I realised how feministic the book is in nature. The book isn't that factual but there are some truths so it's like a bootleg history lesson. Women were actually the ones who dominated, women were the celebrated and everything until there was political struggle so lies were told to destroy the glorification of women. So the whole women should be subservient to men thing in the past and still carrying on today is simply something made up by men in the past. Not saying one sex is better than the other, but doesn't this goes to show that the whole gender differences thing is just stories made up by us because of humans' insatiable greed for power. And male chauvinists as well as women who still believe that it is natural for women to be at home taking care of kids would definitely have a real blast reading the book.

2007-02-25 00:22:38 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

11 answers

I haven't read the book and don't intend to (for personal reasons), but I do agree with your assessment of males writing the "code" even in the bible that states that women are subservient to men. As a man, I believe that all of us are and should be equal. Sure, there are some things that women have a harder time doing than men and there are some things that women can do that men won't or can't even attempt. The bigger problem is that most women feel inferior and do yield to men. Until women get the clue that they are equal, this will probably be the way of the world for a long time to come.

2007-02-25 01:41:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Well staying at home and taking care of the children, and domestic issues does not mean that a woman didn't have power, and in fact there have been times and cultures in the past where women held the power. For example, I am taking a Native American history class and quitea bit of the tribes were matriarhcal. Just because the men fought in wars, and hunted did not mean they had the power. In fact, women were the ones that most decided whether the men should go to war with other tribes or not for protection of territory or gaining more. When Europeans came over it was a surprise to them that it was the women who dealt with consultations for wars, treaties, etc. This was the opposite of European culture, and they tried to dodge dealing with the women, and just consult with the men of the tribes.

2007-02-25 13:55:16 · answer #2 · answered by Brennan Huff 5 · 0 0

I think it depends on the attitude of a reader...

I didn't see overwhelming femininity in the book. It plays with facts, most of which could be true, few couldn't.

Of course, women behave subservient in a way, but don't you think it was to a great margin their own choice? I mean it's easier to rule while sitting someplace warm and cozy :) History, both old and new, knows many examples when men were merely representatives, and women held the true power.

2007-02-25 08:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by lex t 1 · 0 0

Gender difference thing made up ? Women and men are different, the whole story that there are no differences between the genders was made up by feminists. You should judge everybody as an individual, but if you want to look at males and females as a collective, there is a huge difference.

2007-02-25 09:17:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

We have to understand that there are four errors pertaining to *masculinity* and *femininity|*

Two are aberrations of the *masculine,* and two are aberrations of the *feminine|*


(1) Excess of masculinity: the macho|

(2) Defect of masculinity: the wimp|

(3) Excess of femininity: the butch|

(4) Defect of femininity: the waif|


All arguments about who is in control and what the other sex is doing wrong is based upon one of the those four poles, assuming that a man or a woman *must* fall into one of them|

However, there is another alternative|

That is the *man* who gives way when it is merely an unimportant factor or when it has to do with the needs of another, while standing indomitably strong when it comes to principle|

And the *woman* who gives way when it is merely an unimportant factor or when it has to do with the needs of another, while standing indomitable strong when it comes to principle|

Each is meant for the other - each is meant to serve the other - one does not exist simply for the sake of the other, as erroneous and primitive cultures hold| (i.e. *patriarchy* in which women are just there for men; or *matriarchy,* where men are just there for women)|


Each needs the other, since one alone is not strong enough for life's challenges|

A man to do what he must do, needs woman|

A woman to do what she must do, needs man|

Respect, and giving way to the truth that the other holds, and not exploitation and striving for control should be the modus operandi of the relationship between the sexes|


The error of radical feminism is based upon a *scarcity* mentality that sees men and women in opposite and mutually antagonistic camps, where the gain of one is the loss of the other|

This feminist attitude can be manifest in *both* men *and* women, as the radical feminist tries to emasculate the man, and the man in turn tries to tyrannize over the woman|


It is not supposed to be this way|





---

2007-02-25 13:46:20 · answer #5 · answered by Catholic Philosopher 6 · 1 0

Forget the DaVinci code if you read the KJV of the Bible, it clearly says that after Eve ate the fruit, she gave some to her hsuband who was next to her. So that means he was there the whole time satan talked to Eve and Adam said nothing, never instructed her as the ehad of the household and then he and the whole male race, has blamed the whole thing on us since then, and then tried to say, we cannot preach the word. HHHMMM.

2007-02-25 10:33:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

So if I uderstand clearly what you typed, you want women to be back in control?
And remember this only happened in some cultures, not everywhere. In Egypt for example, they worshipped both male and female Gods and even had an female pharaoh at one point. Isn't that more equal than YOUR lust of power (wanting women to be in control)

And you blame male chauvinist for what happened in the past? Well I blame feminists, radical feminists, female chauvinists, whatever you want to call them, for what is happening today

2007-02-25 08:33:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Believe it or not, it is natural for women to take care of kids, they are better at it. I have no problem with women working, but if I had a kid, I'd rather my wife do most of the looking after. Of course I'd want to spend every other moment I had with the baby.

p.s. just because it professes equal rights does not make it feministic. I'm all for equality (im a socialist) but feminism doesn't seem to like equality as much as I do (think mary daley)

2007-02-25 10:32:35 · answer #8 · answered by callum828 2 · 1 3

You're absolutely right about that, but how do we know that the book is even factually based?

2007-02-25 12:11:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You have just explained why we women are the more clever sex..let men think this is their world, but under it all..we KNOW who wields the real power!

2007-02-25 08:34:15 · answer #10 · answered by Kay 5 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers