Men as Providers


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 The real answer is far more complex.

I don't see it as complex at all.  Men have the natural instinct to sacrifice themselves in defense of women at the same time women have the natural instinct to retreat to be defended by men because of the age old requirement for the survival of the species (natural law).  The more intense survival becomes at risk, the more these instincts surface.

Putting women in combat with men  in a mixed unit (also applies to mixed gender contact sports) does either of 2 things:  1.) Reduces combat effectiveness as male and female instinct surfaces, jeopardizing strategy, or 2.) The instinct is effectively wiped out of either gender weakening the natural law for species survival.

There was this theory that I can't remember the name of anymore so I can't verify its accuracy... passing a learned culture/skill/mechanism through 9 generations makes it permanent in human genetics.  So, theoritically, the survival of the species will become at risk 9 generations later after such instinct is wiped out of society unless new instincts can be imprinted to counter-act it.

Here's more natural law examples - a rooster does nothing much to care for the chicks.  The hens do all that work.  But roosters will protect every single member of that coop from predators to the point of kamikaze assuring the survival of the brood.  Drones (male bees) does nothing for a beehive except to demand he be cleaned and fed.  He doesn't even come with a stinger to defend the hive.  But all he does is wait for a new queen to emerge, impregnate her, then die so that the survival of the beehive can be assured.  These are natural law instincts imprinted in their genetics that has served the species to survive extinction.  Interestingly, man is about the only species on the planet that has the capacity to overcome their natural instincts which serves a great purpose for the Plan of Salvation but also give them the ability to cause their own extinction.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If women can match what the men's infantry requirements are to be effective, by all means they could be allowed in.  Most cannot.

Well, tell Traveler that they CANNOT.  Because obviously, if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right.

And it may very well be that because society simply doesn't expect it of them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, boxer said:

Average IQ depends on the subset of the population you are looking at.

Duh-uh.  You said "AVERAGE" with no qualifiers. Without any qualifiers, it is implied that you're talking about the population as a whole, not a subset. 

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I've gone and reviewed your post to see if there were any way to justify what you just said.  Since you had spoken of people with various college degrees as a subset, I'm going to believe that you "implied" a subset of "those without higher education."  I still don't buy that is 80.

It would have been more clear had you made that distinction.  But I'll go ahead and accept that it was a simple oversight on your part.

Quote

It really is one of the mind-boggling things that smart people say that really belies their actual intelligence.  They under-estimate the actual brain-power it requires to do something.  They say things like the above. Maybe it's a psychological self-deprecating humble-brag or something. They don't really want to say they are smart or think most people are like them so they say the above.

And like I've said before, when your social group is smart people (which most engineers social group is), you have no clue as to who the not smart people are.  And you yourself admit "you can't really succeed without being at least average" . . no duh!  College used to be a filter, a smart-people filter, smart people (generally speaking) went to college and got a degree.  People who weren't so smart, just graduated high school.  Then insteading of looking at the fact that intelligence is a huuuuge driver of success, we said . . .well since people who go to college to really well, let's send everyone to college!  So then the standards got lowered for getting to college b/c going to college determines success. Well now you have a bunch of smart and not so smart people getting college degrees, what's the filter?  GPA, or an advanced degree!

You say it doesn't take brain power to be an engineer . . .bull.  An engineer is fundamentally someone who builds, creates, designs, INNOVATES. You can not consistently innovate over long stretches of period of time without brain power.  Yes you could teach the low intelligence person what a for loop is . . .big deal. Now teach them about inheritence, polymorphism, NTP, server racks, URL get/sets, WSF, etc. etc. etc. etc.  It takes a lot of brain power to actually engineer-to hold all that information in your head, to know what it means, to utilize it.  Brain power isn't about memorization . . .it's about solving problems.  And not just know those things, but know how they INTERACT, know that when you do x now y might happen in the future. That takes brain power.

I believe you have missed a couple of very important terms I used in the post you quoted.

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But the way things are set up, the day-to-day engineer can be perfectly capable with only an average IQ score (which, BTW, is 100, not 80).

Engineering today is made up of three tiers.

1) Researchers and Code writers.  These are the guys who usually have PhDs.  Some Master's degrees.  They really know their stuff.  These guys need to be highly capable and intelligent, creative, and able to see the meaning behind the math.  They do need to be highly intelligent.  And all of them are highly accomplished.

2) Leaders, Industry experts, top performers.  I fit into this category.  I am sought after as an expert in my field at many levels.  And, yes, I have an upper genius level IQ.  But I'm not your average (in a manner analogous to your use of the word) engineer.  I do things most engineers can't.  I "get" a lot of things the average engineer simply doesn't get, but I also have a breadth and depth of experience that few have obtained because I work so freaking much.  I've done a lot more than most engineers my age.  BUT, I'm certainly not your average engineer.

3) The day-to-day engineers.  These guys will take an already existing design and modify it to the needs of the current project.  Basic algebra is really all that is needed.  Codes and Industry Standards have been set up to show you what equations to use in what situations.  Computer models rule the day for higher level calculations.  And the way the software is set up they are mostly plug and chug.  Average level people can operate this software.  I've seen it done.  The equations from codes and industry standards are fairly basic.  My 14 y.o. son entered some stuff for me when I taught him what it was about.  On a simple model, he did a good job.

It is this third tier that I'm talking about that can be fine with average level intelligence.  It just takes some work.  No, you probably don't want to give them a job that really requires innovation.  But the every-day stuff?  No problem.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have long been in doubts over IQ tests. I dont believe they truly measure ones real intelligence. I was intrigued by them back in high school. I went and bought all these brain game workbooks and IQ tests. Over the course of several months I was able to improve my IQ by 15 points. I noticed a pattern in IQ tests that they werent all created equal and some were more driven in some areas than others. Regardless of who scores better on an IQ test, intelligence itself isnt something we understand yet alone measure. I would bet though that God created both sexes with the same levels of intelligence, we just dont know how to appropriately measure each sexes ability against each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. The physical limitations of a woman already give her a natural roadblock in some jobs that you can't really remove.

I am talking about laws and regulations... man made road blocks should not exist.  If it is a natural road block such as a physical limitation then I am not really for lowering the bar for gender or race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I am talking about laws and regulations... man made road blocks should not exist.  If it is a natural road block such as a physical limitation then I am not really for lowering the bar for gender or race.

But, its lawmakers who do such. They mandate and overrule (man made raodblocks) in order to have gender equality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some ideas and comments:

If, in our society, the genders are equal - why would anyone want or need to change their biological gender?

Concerning women in combat - Kipling coined a poem - "The female of the species is more deadly than the male".  It is my personal opinion that no one is fit for combat but that everybody (that is not mentally or physically disabled - meaning incapable of taking care of themselves) should be trained for and understand combat.  We are all vulnerable to some extent and it is inevitable that in a violent world where Satan has influence that at some point of every person's life they will not be able to rely on someone else to protect them.

In general I agree with @Rob Osborn - there may be some specific points that I think he is extreme and goes off the rails - but that can be a fault of our own in looking for something to criticize in someone that is somewhat closed minded about some things.  The point is that there are gender differences and because of those differences the genders need to be integrated for the two to become whole (complete) and the best way for that to happen is for two of the different genders to learn to complement each other - and that will not and cannot happen if and when the two loose track of what each should and is capable of bringing to an integrated union.  The whole argument of gender inequality and confusion is initiated because individuals or a society of individuals has lost the significance and purpose of gender and is incapable of gender integration.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have some ideas and comments:

If, in our society, the genders are equal - why would anyone want or need to change their biological gender?

Concerning women in combat - Kipling coined a poem - "The female of the species is more deadly than the male".  It is my personal opinion that no one is fit for combat but that everybody (that is not mentally or physically disabled - meaning incapable of taking care of themselves) should be trained for and understand combat.  We are all vulnerable to some extent and it is inevitable that in a violent world where Satan has influence that at some point of every person's life they will not be able to rely on someone else to protect them.

In general I agree with @Rob Osborn - there may be some specific points that I think he is extreme and goes off the rails - but that can be a fault of our own in looking for something to criticize in someone that is somewhat closed minded about some things.  The point is that there are gender differences and because of those differences the genders need to be integrated for the two to become whole (complete) and the best way for that to happen is for two of the different genders to learn to complement each other - and that will not and cannot happen if and when the two loose track of what each should and is capable of bringing to an integrated union.  The whole argument of gender inequality and confusion is initiated because individuals or a society of individuals has lost the significance and purpose of gender and is incapable of gender integration.

 

The Traveler

I went to the Ballet last year and it is truly amazing to see the great difference in genders and their roles. Night and day, and yet compliment each other. Life also is like the Ballet in so many ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I went to the Ballet last year and it is truly amazing to see the great difference in genders and their roles. Night and day, and yet compliment each other. Life also is like the Ballet in so many ways. 

Honesty is found in the natural world.  Having pets and a pond with a forest beyond as a backyard shows the honesty in gender differences.  We have 4 ball pythons, 1 female, 3 males... the difference in biology and roles are palpable.  We have dogs, chickens, birds, turtles, fish... and then we have the wild stuff - Red Cardinals feeding on the feeder, Carolina Wrens building a nest on our ceiling fans, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a woman, I am pretty "T.O.'d" that you have made the assumption that my husband is biologically programmed to be better than me at everything other than child rearing, cleaning and compassionate service. He has no handiness genes and is completely clueless about fixing and building things. I am naturally very gifted in those areas. Not as physically strong, but much better equipped mentally to understand how to do those things well and efficiently. He is also not great at math, I am a math whiz. He, on the other hand, is an immensely compassionate and friendly person. He gives and gives where I would be tempted to just tell people to shove off. I wouldn't actually say that, but I would think it. There is something about his nature that is far more giving and compassionate than mine. I am much better at cleaning though, so you got that part right. But since he's the man I should let him go build stuff (though he hates it) and help the kids with their math homework and I'll find a funeral to help out with or a nose to wipe. That's where God wants me to shine. 

Kidding/ overreactive female ranting aside, you might want to look into early LDS women history. The original Relief Society actively worked to fund women to become medical doctors, among other things. They did way more than make centerpieces and deliver dinners to expectant mothers. They were truly a force to be reckoned with. Those women were enormously gifted in many areas and did far more to move the church and society forward than they are given credit for. They also supported the men and didn't try to tear them down. We can all learn something from them.

I get what you're saying though as far as using "equality" as a way to devalue the uniqueness of men and women, and motherhood in general. Men need something that is their own (example: priesthood) and women need something that is their own. I have no problems with men being my religious leaders, nor do I think equality should mean that men should be held back to make room for me. Men need women, women need men. On those points, I do agree with you.

Last point: Men can "preside" in a lot of ways that aren't authoritative or making money. Remaining worthy of the priesthood is one enormous way that they can preside. Plus they're only to preside as far as they are following God, and the second a man restricts his wife from magnifying the individual talents and gifts she has been given (especially if they're considered "masculine" gifts), then he is no longer worthy to preside.  What about the men who are not physically fit or healthy enough to "protect," provide for their families financially or cut down trees? Is a disabled man not worthy of presiding over his family? Hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, InvisibleOne said:

As a woman, I am pretty "T.O.'d" that you have made the assumption that my husband is biologically programmed to be better than me at everything other than child rearing, cleaning and compassionate service. He has no handiness genes and is completely clueless about fixing and building things. I am naturally very gifted in those areas. Not as physically strong, but much better equipped mentally to understand how to do those things well and efficiently. He is also not great at math, I am a math whiz. He, on the other hand, is an immensely compassionate and friendly person. He gives and gives where I would be tempted to just tell people to shove off. I wouldn't actually say that, but I would think it. There is something about his nature that is far more giving and compassionate than mine. I am much better at cleaning though, so you got that part right. But since he's the man I should let him go build stuff (though he hates it) and help the kids with their math homework and I'll find a funeral to help out with or a nose to wipe. That's where God wants me to shine. 

Kidding/ overreactive female ranting aside, you might want to look into early LDS women history. The original Relief Society actively worked to fund women to become medical doctors, among other things. They did way more than make centerpieces and deliver dinners to expectant mothers. They were truly a force to be reckoned with. Those women were enormously gifted in many areas and did far more to move the church and society forward than they are given credit for. They also supported the men and didn't try to tear them down. We can all learn something from them.

I get what you're saying though as far as using "equality" as a way to devalue the uniqueness of men and women, and motherhood in general. Men need something that is their own (example: priesthood) and women need something that is their own. I have no problems with men being my religious leaders, nor do I think equality should mean that men should be held back to make room for me. Men need women, women need men. On those points, I do agree with you.

Last point: Men can "preside" in a lot of ways that aren't authoritative or making money. Remaining worthy of the priesthood is one enormous way that they can preside. Plus they're only to preside as far as they are following God, and the second a man restricts his wife from magnifying the individual talents and gifts she has been given (especially if they're considered "masculine" gifts), then he is no longer worthy to preside.  What about the men who are not physically fit or healthy enough to "protect," provide for their families financially or cut down trees? Is a disabled man not worthy of presiding over his family? Hmm?

In "general". That's the point. In "general", the man is to provide and protect. In general, most men are gifted with a stronger body made for working (to provide for their family). That's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychologically men and women are different - Sigman Freud theorized that the reason women evolved into  domesticated roles and men the hunters - is that if men were left to tend the fire that they would pee on it.  From my  years as a scout master I would agree.  My wife, who served for many years as young women camp director, has advised me that peeing on fires just is not a problem with young women.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Psychologically men and women are different - Sigman Freud theorized that the reason women evolved into  domesticated roles and men the hunters - is that if men were left to tend the fire that they would pee on it.  From my  years as a scout master I would agree.  My wife, who served for many years as young women camp director, has advised me that peeing on fires just is not a problem with young women.

 

The Traveler

What?  Freud is a Modern Feminist?  You don't have to diminish men to reason gender roles.   And it really bugs me that men still think this is how to make women happy - make them feel better about themselves by reducing their menfolk to bumbling idiots. 

Women historically did domesticated roles because they have the mammary glands that produce milk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What?  Freud is a Modern Feminist?  You don't have to diminish men to reason gender roles.   And it really bugs me that men still think this is how to make women happy - make them feel better about themselves by reducing their menfolk to bumbling idiots. 

Women historically did domesticated roles because they have the mammary glands that produce milk.

This is exactly why women should not be scout masters - or in charge of a young men camp out.  And if you think about it long enough - why children (both boys and girls) need good male and female role models.  Otherwise they may grow up thinking like Freud 

BTW: a Freudian slip is when you say one thing but you mean a mother.  😉 

My humor may not meet you high female standards - but most men will at least get a little chuckle.

 

The Traveler

I will first apologize - but I once worked for a company called Eaton-Kenway.  They use to own a building on 1st South and 5th East in Salt Lake City.  In front of the building is a artistic sculpture and waterfall - but the pump for the waterfall never work well.  Once when a customer asked about the artwork - I told them it was called a dozen boy scouts on a cliff.  I do not think they got the humor - likely because they were related to @anatess2 (if not by blood then by gender).

 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This is exactly why women should not be scout masters - or in charge of a young men camp out.  And if you think about it long enough - why children (both boys and girls) need good male and female role models.  Otherwise they may grow up thinking like Freud 

BTW: a Freudian slip is when you say one thing but you mean a mother.  😉 

My humor may not meet you high female standards - but most men will at least get a little chuckle.

 

The Traveler

Au contraire.  Freud is many things, but male bash-ist is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I thought to resurrect this thread because I believe there is a lot of confusion about gender and gender roles in our society.  The Proclamation to the World gives, what I believe, to be important notions about gender.  Scientifically, we know that gender is not just a human trait.  In every species where gender exist - the primary purpose of gender is to propagate  the species - which is only accomplished by the complementary behavior of the two opposite species of male and female.  There is not a single exception - where gender exist - there is no other way for that species to survive and continue other than through the union (sex) between the opposite genders.

We may emagine other possible roles of gender but such imaginations are speculations and fantasies and in reality not actually "necessary".   However, I would take this to a new level when considering highly intelligent species - of which humans are our only current empirical example.  In such a case - I would suggest that gender among such intelligent beings as the human race, of necessity must include that acts of procreation.  I am not saying that this is the only intelligent purpose or reason - but definitely a intelligent purpose and reason that if deliberately excluded, of necessity, creates a "Unnecessary" purpose or reason.

That in conclusion the complete  purpose or reason of gender in a highly intelligent species is to complete a union between the opposite genders.   Opposite genders being defined as the genders that through sex is capable of propagating; completing the survival of the species - specifically male and female.  Thus one gender is not complete without the opposite - this despite any personal motivates - the two opposite genders are only complete when they compliment each other.  So that the role of a man is to make complete the woman and the role of a woman to make complete the man - that in so doing the whole become greater than the sum of all its parts. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share