Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-curium!jackson
From: jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Why male dominance?
Message-ID: <1435@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 14:43:45 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1435
Posted: Fri Feb 28 14:43:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 22:37:54 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.singles:10563 net.women:9424

>> Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike):
>>
>> [feminists claim that the sexes are equal]...
>> 
>> How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the
>> sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting
>> to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men
>> managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see
>> much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical 
>> violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history 
>> and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society?
>> 
>> 				Seth Jackson

>What choice do they have?  Honestly, Seth, you are grasping at straws.
>And even if your simplistic analysis were true, how would that justify
>the situation?  

Grasping at straws? Analysis?? Justification??? What on Earth are you
talking about? I've done nothing more than ask questions.

>	After all, humans have lived under tyrannical monarchs
>for thousands of years.  Many do even today.  Does that make it right?
>Why would men want to put women in a subservient role?  Heck, men
>usually want to put other *men* in a subservient role.
>
>Your error, Seth, is in the assertion that feminists believe that

There were no assertions made in the above posting. Only questions. 

>the men and women are, or even started off, "equal".  The obvious
>biological differences led to obvious differences in social roles.
>The--well I should say *A*--feminist position is that many of these
>role differences are no longer necessary, if they indeed ever were.

I think it's a safe (or at least a reasonable) assumption that biological
differences in some way led to the evolution of different social roles.
It's also reasonable to assume that the process of evolution works the
same way in regard to traditions, customs, and social roles as it does for
the evolution of species: over time, society adopts those roles customs 
that contibute to its ability to function smoothly and to perpetuate itself, 
and it discards those customs that detract from its ability to do so. Thus,
the social roles that survive over time are those that meet some particular 
needs of society. Therefore, the question is:

1) What needs of society were met by allowing this so-called "male-dominant" 
role to evolve as the widely accepted standard? 

2) What changes, if any, have occurred to make these roles obsolete?
--
"Writing 'what for?' across the morning sky..."

				Seth Jackson