Debate Mansion

   

Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women (Page 6)

Post Reply New Post

Page 6 of 44

charminggenie

IF-Rockerz

charminggenie

Joined: 28 December 2007

Posts: 6861

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 12:04pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Education, empowerment, and then what? Live happily ever after?
Education and Empowerment will provide an ability to evolve and perhaps gather a true sense of  " gender equality", I don't believe establishing the power equation will achieve anything, humans like other species will always have a sense of competition. Both genders are inherently  different , but we need to teach that -difference does not equal inferiority

Rather for me equality in terms of law, workforce and other social facets would be the more practical solution. Here education can and does play a role. 

The dice is loaded in favor of one gender.  
Biologically both genders are equipped with their own sets of capabilities . I see a balance of power. Different ammunition but equally competent.
Yet we have an imbalance due to a singular interpretation of social behaviour. centuries of following one ideology, has conditioned the generations with a concept of "gender superiority".  Education would aid in discarded that concept.

How do you balance what is innately an imbalanced equation?
Are we talking biologically or socially. Former , i disagree, for the other - organic awareness. 

 Does promoting gender equality actually achieve gender equality? 
Not promoting but cultivating gender equality can do a lot of good.

Ultimately, is the "overall" plan when addressing violence against women, nothing but a hope that men remain kind, sympathetic and supportive to the needs of women?

The overall plan is to stop making " violence against women" a gender based issue. Once we stop categorizing violent incidences according to gender - we will achieve equality. Unfortunately to achieve that ideal state, we need to push and educate the horrors and unjust of violence against women in cases of sati, dowry, infanticide etc considering the skewed social opinion about women and the designated inferior status.

 Expecting men to have a certain behaviour or emotion like sympathy for women defeats the purpose of equality. We need to teach how this power equilibrium needs both of men and women with their distinct capabilities to achieve  the nature's balance.




Behavioral gene would simply provide an excuse for this gender superiority behavior.

And amazing debate guys, Great job @TM and all the postersClapClap


Edited by charminggenie - 12 February 2014 at 12:12pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

_Angie_

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women (Page 6)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 12:35pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by charminggenie


Biologically both genders are equipped with their own sets of capabilities . I see a balance of power. Different ammunition but equally competent.



I don't. Because, unfortunately, what you said flies against facts.

Let's shift the focus away from humans to, say, lions for the time being. Please take a moment to go through the following two links.

http://www.zoo.org/page.aspx?pid=1865#.UvvKh4XN2b4

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/male-lion-mauls-female-lion-front-shocked-visitors-article-1.1520503

Q1) from link 1, "In the hierarchy of a lion pride, the males feed first, followed by the females and finally, the cubs.". Why is that?

Q2) from link 2, why/how did the male kill the female, at will?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

charminggenie

charminggenie

IF-Rockerz

charminggenie

Joined: 28 December 2007

Posts: 6861

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 12:54pm | IP Logged
[
QUOTE=K.Universe.]
Originally posted by charminggenie


Biologically both genders are equipped with their own sets of capabilities . I see a balance of power. Different ammunition but equally competent.



I don't. Because, unfortunately, what you said flies against facts.
These facts remain debatable, science always leaves the door open for discussion and improvisation, Mr K.

Let's shift the focus away from humans to, say, lions for the time being. Please take a moment to go through the following two links.

http://www.zoo.org/page.aspx?pid=1865#.UvvKh4XN2b4

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/male-lion-mauls-female-lion-front-shocked-visitors-article-1.1520503

Q1) from link 1, "In the hierarchy of a lion pride, the males feed first, followed by the females and finally, the cubs.". Why is that?
Easy, in the article the group had 2 male lions , they were fewer in number , so to sustain the group and for reproduction purposes , you do need to preserve your male lion more , hence the preference. Also female lion has greater life span compared to it's counterpart.

But did you not notice the difference in their heights, weight, attacking style and their capability to reproduce.  Female lion is also known to hunt better than their male counterpart while male defends the pride  in a better manner. Distinctive differences but not inequality.  

Q2) from link 2, why/how did the male kill the female, at will?
 "rare and unfortunate occurrence" -  Element of surprise , also could be the brute rage or the male lion's greater physical strength . But then we both can find zillion examples of a female lion overcoming a male one. The point is not  to establish the physical differences or imbalances , that way emotionally/biologically females are superior. 

It all depends on how you define the equality and interpret the differences. What power means to me can be a completely different entity for you?
[/QUOTE]



Edited by charminggenie - 12 February 2014 at 1:04pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe._Angie_

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20588

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 1:03pm | IP Logged
Our close cousins seem to have gone down a different path of dominance

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_primateevolution.html

http://www.livescience.com/2707-primal-fights-females-dominate.html

In some ways it seems our "civilization" stacks the odds against women, while the "savagery" of wild primates stacks the odds for women.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe.

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 1:35pm | IP Logged
So it appears that an individual or a group would try to dominate another individual or a group, as long as differences exist.

While it appears that, in general, the female sex got the short end of the stick at the hands of nature, exceptions to that observance could be found as well. That in numbers, lies strength.

To me, the question is not about who is dominating whom, who is exploiting whom and who is ultimately winning or losing. I know that more times than not, it is the female sex that is losing. I also know that, there are ways females can overcome that. To me, the bigger question is, what can we do about dominance. Is it in nature to dominate/exploit the weak? Which gene is responsible for that?


The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

charminggenie

charminggenie

IF-Rockerz

charminggenie

Joined: 28 December 2007

Posts: 6861

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 1:56pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

So it appears that an individual or a group would try to dominate another individual or a group, as long as differences exist.
It will happen mostly , if the survival  of particular group/individual is dependent on the domination of that group or individual over the other. 

While it appears that, in general, the female sex got the short end of the stick at the hands of nature, exceptions to that observance could be found as well. That in numbers, lies strength.
This I have a problem comprehending with you, Mr K. You are assuming that capabilities like emotional sensitivity, reproduction, compassion are inferior or not worthy to be considered as a dominating trait. For me , personally, reproduction is a very powerful trait to have , it brings a greater hormonal and psychological change.  The nature,if we consider that in account, favored female sex. Even the supposedly brute strength of male sex can be interpreted as a defense mechanism for survival, as they have comparatively shorter life span in most species.
Nature has balanced them perfectly , one cannot survive the other. Co-dependent . 

To me, the question is not about who is dominating whom, who is exploiting whom and who is ultimately winning or losing. I know that more times than not, it is the female sex that is losing. I also know that, there are ways females can overcome that. To me, the bigger question is, what can we do about dominance. Is it in nature to dominate/exploit the weak? Which gene is
 responsible for that?

What is the contest and its categories, you are pitting the male and female against each other and where the female sex looses? The selection of  that contest is what separates our argument. Nature, made female equal if not superior to male. Society interpreted the "softer traits" as inferiority - thats the problem. Not natural, but behavioural.  

By gene, I sincerely hope you don't bring the XY chromosome argument. That is , well lame. The genetic composition is meant to differ , so that the two can always be connected with each other and sustain life. Yin-Yang- balance of life. Behavioural Science.


Science is simple, we complicate it by over-thing it.  

And to remove domination- change the behavior of society. legal, social and other tangible opportunities be equally available to both genders. It was the laws of the land which made a dowry, let it be the same land that empower a wave against it. Make equality an intrinsic phenomena not a promotion.


Edited by charminggenie - 12 February 2014 at 2:01pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

LeadNitrate

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 2:24pm | IP Logged
i am sorry, you are missing too many of my points genie.

1. it's not always about survival, that an individual or a group tries to dominate another individual or a group. they do, because they can. violence against women is not just violence on women; it is is violence because they are women.

2. i am not saying who is inferior and who is superior. i am merely observing who is dominant and who is subservient in the timeline of life

3. "one cannot survive without another, hence perfectly balanced" is not what is under contention. what is under contention is why is one gender consistently victimized

4. there is no one contest in particular. the contest, if any, is life.

5. when i am talking about genes, i am talking about genes (coded instructions) and how they are involved in the formation of neuronal circuits, the execution of behavior and mechanisms involved in neuro-pathogenesis. Please Google "genes, brain and behavior".

6. science is not simple.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20588

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 2:51pm | IP Logged

Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. Most species will fall into a natural social order that is best for propagation of the species. There is really no identifiable "alpha" trait. Visible features like strength and size play a factor. But other invisible factors such as intelligence and immunity also seem to play a role. The dominant-submissive structure is common in most animal groups.

 

But the dominance isn't something targeted like - you're female, submit or you're fur is black, submit, you migrated from the other side, submit.

 

We don't understand dominance in nature completely either, but it is unlike human behavior. Genetically we can probably identify dominance in terms of natural selection. Humans have targeted dominance like misogyny, racism, ethnocentrism. To understand that we do need to understand our "nurture" as well.

 

Could altering dominance genetically, risk altering our Darwinian fate as homo sapien sapien.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

_Angie_krystal_watz

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do women HAVE to be thin??

2 3 4

LadyDabangg 29 2052 24 March 2014 at 12:34pm
By Lavendar
Who is the worst among prominent politicians?

2 3 4 5 6 7

pogo 49 2914 26 March 2010 at 11:18am
By _Angie_
Women equal rights vs Women Reservation

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vinzy 71 6614 02 September 2009 at 4:08am
By angelic_devil
Inferiority complex among desi's

2 3

raj5000 20 1483 10 March 2008 at 7:57am
By corvette
r women meaner to women?

2 3 4

mkzara 25 2788 23 February 2007 at 12:14pm
By Morning_Dew

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.