Woman the dominate sex | Forum

Let's see here, it takes nine months for a human female to carry and birth an offspring. A male completes his part of making a baby and in five minutes he's ready to go to work on another.
Based upon this inequality in reproductive capability and the law of supply and demand. Since the male (sperm donor) has a very high capacity to procreate, his value is diminished (ie cheap) because what he can provide is so plentiful and common.
Since the female takes so long to carry a child, her capacity for reproduction is very limited (rare) thus creating a high demand for it.
In terms of value in a biological sense, I'd speculate women are 100x as valuable as men and that is why they dominate. I think this inequality is hard wired into our brains.
Now if prostitution were suddenly legalized there would likely be a major pole shift in the balance of power within our current society. Because the male brain can always be fooled by some good old fashioned f#*king. Or at least mine can.

@Dimitri: genetic superiority. Uh huh. "Superiority", like money, is always the easiest to get when it's handed to you from the cradle. Personally, I prefer people with merit. 

There is a reason people who raise livestock keep a large supply of females and a small supply of males. Sorry you folks don't get supply and demand and various other tools of deduction. Good luck with that.

@ Dimitri Be sure and take the moral high ground, so you can be sure to get your good guy badge.

@ Shawn The only meritocracy I see going on here is by merit of ad hominem attacks.

Superiority.
Supply and Demand.
Merit.

I believe someone has confused women with the market value of livestock.

@ Beavery
As far as livestock breeding programs, husbandry (pun intended) is an art of not ratio but an understanding of genetics. Contrary to popular belief the best specimens, true to breed standard, make terrible breeders. Show quality animals are worthless for fertility, nurturing offspring and virility. Supply and demand have nothing to do with Dominance. I think you might be referring to genetic dominance not emotional Dominance.

@Dimitri
Superiority is another word for pretentiousness. How about quality or value? Character? Superiority can be confused with Dominance, yet in the OP's post Dominance is a call to devotion to responsibility rather than an attempt to subdue.

@Shawn
Merit. It's hard to argue that one.

@Dimitry:"Even the richest man will fail to hold a decent woman if money is the only thing that can be offered." 

You mean something like superior genes, right? :)  Is there a reliable, scientific test for tha superior genes or is all that merely subjective? Hmm. 

@Dimitry: Heads up -- Padowan knows a bit about farmin'. Goats, sheep, cows, ducks, chickens, chipmunks...  Just thought you'd want to know. She's well past 'farmin' 101'.

And, good luck ;)

Economics apply to almost everything which has value and can be selected.

“I believe some people have confused women with the market value of livestock.”

Observe the use of the word “women,” rather than people, I was referring to people or even if mammals were used instead, the general meaning and implications of my statement would be no different. This is a popular technique in politics these days, to try to establish a false pretense of bigotry by playing with the language a little. Could also be used to implicate a lack of knowledge of women as an insult, either way it has nothing to do with the argument. The herd is very susceptible to this method, I would hope Satanists are not.

“As far as livestock breeding programs, husbandry (pun intended) is an art of not ratio but an understanding of genetics. Contrary to popular belief the best specimens, true to breed standard, make terrible breeders. Show quality animals are worthless for fertility, nurturing offspring and virility. Supply and demand have nothing to do with Dominance. I think you might be referring to genetic dominance not emotional Dominance.”

There is not a large market for “the best specimens” they are a luxury item which most cannot afford and as a result they are a very poor representation of the market as a whole. (ie. How much effect does selling $500M worth of Ferraris have on a $1.5T market?) Most farming is done for the mass production of food. In the case of cattle as an example typically allot of effort is put into selecting a bull which is used to breed 25-50 cows depending on the bull.

“Supply and demand have nothing to do with Dominance.”

Value has everything to do with dominance, especially emotional dominance. Is it not the value of an individual's appearance and character which serves as the basis for selection when choosing a mate? For example, people's desire to choose a mate is the reason most would object to arranged marriages in a society where people have grown accustom to the choice.

@Dimitri
You need to reread my post on Dominance as a 'devotion to responsibility,' not a person. And you seem to keep flipping the premise of the original post. The OP called women the dominant sex. Are you implying the OP possesses a slave attitude?

@Beavery
Take note: the OP post is about WOMEN as the Dominant sex. Projection is also a technique of herd mentality.

Speaking of herds, most heifers are artificially inseminated in large livestock operations by show quality/production standard Bulls that are milked for their sperm. Economically, natural breeding is an inefficient method for mass produced meat.

@Dimitry: She's also smarter than me. :)

@Beavery
"“Supply and demand have nothing to do with Dominance.”
Value has everything to do with dominance, especially emotional dominance. Is it not the value of an individual's appearance and character which serves as the basis for selection when choosing a mate?"

What are you saying here? Supply and Demand equate with value? And then extrapolating value to Dominance?
Please clear this up. How is the female sex considered as a dominate sex by the OP an issue of supply and demand?
I think you are taking what was a generalized concept and interjecting the concept of what's worthy to be appreciated in a female.
Am I on track?

@Dimitri
Your original take was on Genetic Superiority. Could you define that term in the correct context for your intention?

My understanding of genetics does not include a 'trash' genome.

(If you are unaware, my original view early on is that Dominance is only a matter of power struggle of minds. Gender need not apply.)

^ Heh ;) :: megets some popcorn and watches ::

nom nom nom...

"Devotion to responsibility" certainly does not imply a slave mentality, although some can be seen as weak willed if you place yourself secondary to an idea. You're not a slave to responsibility, nor an obligation. That's just fulfilling a duty. A dominant person in this context can be perceived as one who is more than capable of devoting themselves to a duty or obligation over another person.

Like one of the original premises of the OP, women are considered dominant (or empowered) because they and only they can bear the responsibility of creating a child (the most precious resource). Men cannot, plain and simple. They have the conscious choice to play a role in conception, sure, but shirking responsibility and being a deadbeat to the obligation of nurturing that child is in itself weak willed.

The balance is found in the man that fulfills their obligations/responsibility to the child that they helped create. That's not a slave attitude, that shows a persons merit, whether they are told to or not.

@Dimitri
"There's a thing called genetic superiority which makes certain (wo)men more worthwhile (alpha) and others as plain trash (beta). It undermines this whole "beta-idea" where women should be considered more valuable due to "limited reproduction cycles". "

I did not ask you for your implication, of which, as you can see above you were not in actuality implying anything. It was a direct assertion about Genetic Superiority. Nor was it a response to Shawn's post. (It was Beavery's)
Are you sure you can keep up with the pace?

I directly requested a definition of a term you use to represent your claims.

I understand if misdirection is your typical tactic in response to establishing credibility for your premise.

Back the fuck up for a second, Dimitri. I'm not downplaying my gender over a semantic meaning of a word, dude. You can't bear a child. Only a woman can. Cows bear calves, Bulls are selected to manipulate the value/efficiency of producing a resource that is in demand. They don't make a conscious choice to be dominant as per natural selection. That example (dominant market value) is by default a kind of slavery, but in human terms we are above that.

Sure we manipulate circumstances--I'm not anti abortion but I think the conscious choice to abort a child for convenience is wasteful. Fathers always get the short end of the stick because they are always perceived as contributing less to the responsibility the mother has to bear.  Ultimately it is a woman's choice, men can only live with the consequence of the woman's choice. That doesn't make anyone street trash.

It's fine if you refuse to see women as more dominant, but you need to accept the fact that there are things that only woman are capable of doing over men. Same goes for men. This highlights an imbalance, not a "captain save a hoe' mentality that you seem to equate as downplaying one's gender.

 

@Padowan

I realize the response is late, but to respond to your earlier questions.

“What are you saying here? Supply and Demand equate with value?

For there to be a demand for anything there must be some value or perception of value associated with it. If a company is competing with other companies it must strive to create better value or the perception of better value in their product to the consumer than their competition if they wish to dominate the market. The company which provides either the better value or the perception of better value will usually dominate. Clearly there is a legitimate value in creating the perception of value (Marketing, very much lesser magic) so it still boils down into value itself so from here on I will just say value.

Another of the many factors which can have a very significant impact on value is scarcity, if a material necessary to produce a product is very rare the price of the scarce material will be high if there are more consumers who want the material than there is material to go around. A market example of this would be back in the early days of the NYSE when clever investors would see a scarcity in a material developing and rush out and buy it all thus cornering the market and giving them the power to set whatever price they desired until all the short sellers had either covered there losses or had been hauled off to jail.

Short Selling – Borrowing stock certificates, selling them, waiting for the price to go down and then buying them back at a lower price to hand back to the lender and pocketing the difference in price.

“He who sells that which his isn't either buys it back or goes to prison.” -Cornelius Vanderbilt

Now to apply this to people in the context I previously mentioned. People have value, some more than others, this is often used as leverage in many situations. For example if a janitor spits on a CEO's shoe he will likely be hunting for another job very soon. If a super model is dating some lard ass bum the super model being much more marketable will hold all the cards should she choose.

Now for the complex part, Karen Straughan broke this down in a lecture I saw one time much better than I will be able to, but I will try, bear in mind biology is not my subject. Basically the logic for a male in the reproductive process is something like this. “I can plant allot of seeds with little or no risk to myself because I can walk away after planting the seed.” At least he could before civilization. This is a pretty decent strategy for a male looking to pass on his genes and have a better chance of winning out in this genetic optimization problem we call life. The logic for a woman is quite different. “I want to have the best babies I can have because I can only have a few. I need someone to look out for me in my late stages of pregnancy or I could perish so I must be very careful and selective of who I choose for a mate or it could be disastrous for me.” What does this do to the supply demand curve? Well you have one side the male whose most logical strategy in the survival game is to have allot of sex and make allot of babies down to an instinctual level. Then you have on the other side a female whose most logical strategy is to be very selective in choosing the right mate(s). The male side wants, the female side has. This is an ideal situation for the female in a civilized society in terms of holding the value card. Value usually wins out (again be it real or perceived) for anyone intelligent and willing enough to use it. Thanks to civilization, and a government who will protect anyone, man has lost just about all of his value. No longer necessary for protection or as a provider because the government will do both.

You sound very knowledgeable on the subject of animals, I have a pet I am concerned about, would it be ok if I sent you a P.M. To get your input?

It's been a long day I'm going to go kick back on the patio and relax.

P.S. Women are quite capable of providing for themselves these days and many are quite capable of protecting themselves.