[soumya_mty]

Originally Posted by warrior

According to Hobbes, humans in the state of nature are inherently in a "war of all against all," and life in that state is ultimately "nasty, brutish, and short." To Hobbes, this state of nature is remedied by good government.

well...dont get carried away too much by what hobbes said......cuz John Locke and Rousseau have given antithetical opinion about human nature in the state of nature...both believed that human beings are essentially good and prefer harmony to violence...

Originally Posted by warrior

According to original sin, humans in the state of nature are tarnished by the sin of Adam, and can only be redeemed by the grace of God;

i dont believe in religious explanations...

Originally Posted by warrior

According to Bertrand Russell moral evil or sin is derived from the instincts that have been transmitted to us from our ancestry of beasts of prey. ...Thus, the simple fact that we humans must eat other life or else starve, die and rot is the probable primordial origin of contemporary and historical moral evil; i.e., the bad things we do to each other by lying, cheating, slandering, thieving and slaughtering.

it is his subjective opinion...so no comments on that...though i do not agree with wat he believes...

the only thing that is true is the survival instinct of every living creature on this earth...animals prey on other animals, humans eat other life forms to stay alive, some animals live in groups, humans too live in structured groups called societies.......for wat?.....for survival.......and security...

u had earlier mentioned that given the free will to use a knife everyone would just kill each other.......and u say this is cuz of, as Russell said, our animal instincts......that's not true......animals attack only when they feel threatened in any way.....wich is again for survival...or they attack their prey for food which is again for survival.......same for humans....only wen we are threatened we might use those knives....(or if someone who is psychologically abnormal or is of an unstable mentality may use it unnecessarily for other motives...i personally believe that it's not the instincts but the environment in which one is brought up that largely determines one's personality, and hence, whether he/she will use the knife for butchering someone, or for making a tasty dish in the kitchen)...

Originally Posted by warrior

It's a pity that being human ( am I assuming that) u don't know the human nature and the basic instincts that guide all of us.

if u think, by personally attacking me u can prove ur point, then let me tell u…..it’s not working!

i agree there are some really evil people on earth....but i still believe that there is some goodness left on earth and that it will triumph over evil...amen.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by soumya_mty

well...dont get carried away too much by what hobbes said......cuz John Locke and Rousseau have given antithetical opinion about human nature in the state of nature...both believed that human beings are essentially good and prefer harmony to violence...



i dont believe in religious explanations...



it is his subjective opinion...so no comments on that...though i do not agree with wat he believes...

the only thing that is true is the survival instinct of every living creature on this earth...animals prey on other animals, humans eat other life forms to stay alive, some animals live in groups, humans too live in structured groups called societies.......for wat?.....for survival.......and security...

u had earlier mentioned that given the free will to use a knife everyone would just kill each other.......and u say this is cuz of, as Russell said, our animal instincts......that's not true......animals attack only when they feel threatened in any way.....wich is again for survival...or they attack their prey for food which is again for survival.......same for humans....only wen we are threatened we might use those knives....(or if someone who is psychologically abnormal or is of an unstable mentality may use it unnecessarily for other motives...i personally believe that it's not the instincts but the environment in which one is brought up that largely determines one's personality, and hence, whether he/she will use the knife for butchering someone, or for making a tasty dish in the kitchen)...

if u think, by personally attacking me u can prove ur point, then let me tell u…..it’s not working!

i agree there are some really evil people on earth....but i still believe that there is some goodness left on earth and that it will triumph over evil...amen.

mam I have just iterated what other (very knowledgable persons) have said.

yes barbarism is basic human instinct. If you see people around you behaving in a civilized fashion that's just because of the societal rules and pressures.

I said most not all will use knife to cut other. Also some motivation dosen't make u abnormal.

And I am not attacking you.

[maheshtk_21]

Originally Posted by soumya

no sir.....i've already put forth my views and proved my point

says who? this is how domestic violence begins.

Originally Posted by soumya

besides, the style of arguing in ur posts indicates a very misogynistic attitude

and did u say eureka after finding that out?
I think he has been pretty forthright about it.

Originally Posted by soumya

so, i have no further comments...good bye and good luck in ur pursuit...

U r fickly.

Originally Posted by soumya

Do not speed read this...

I knew u were doing this to Pupil's posts.

Originally Posted by soumya

okay, the info is based on wat i have read in Times of India so far...so Times of India is all heresay...eh?

see Soumya,many people have blinkered opinions on many things.

The respectable TOI will definitely say that the following is hearsay

Originally Posted by soumya

u must b knowing that in the early vedic period, the status of women in society was decent

Sabke apne bias hote hai.

[maheshtk_21]

Regarding my personal opinion,
I share Pupil's views on the law in that other thread, but dont agree with some of the things here.

I believe in the inherent kindness of women,and yes it is a male dominated society.and sadly so.

However many women make good use of the stereotypes and expect the best of both the worlds.
These are the chauvinists that are less talked about.
And we shall attempt to dwell into this aspect.

Yes,no denying the fact that women have been treated in the worst possible manner, and that is why there is so much madness around.I am a believer in the sacred feminine.

[soumya_mty]

Originally Posted by warrior

yes barbarism is basic human instinct. If you see people around you behaving in a civilized fashion that's just because of the societal rules and pressures... I said most not all will use knife to cut other

love (in the broadest sense of the term) is also a basic human instinct...the truth is that both love and hate are human instincts...both civility and barbarism are human instincts...but to say that barbarism is the dominant human instinct is inappropriate (since u said that most will butcher someone else).........since.....our society is based on civility and not barbarism...why?.....simpy because early humans realised that barbarism, violence, hatred, fear, and insecurity are nothing but threats to the most basic animal instinct of survival.....if most people would have liked to commit homicide, then no one would have liked to follow any rules/laws that prohibited them to do so...and society or the State wouldn't have been able to do anything because the society/State themselves would have been formed of those very crude individuals!...isnt it?....

if u hit me, i can also hit u back....but since both of us wanna live (survival instinct), we decide let's live together since our purpose is the same!...

and yes im not denying that there are some creepy humans with really twisted minds or the merciless, non-empathetic ones, but they are not the majority!.....THANKFULLY!!! (in fact, laws were made and the State came into existence to keep such people at bay who dont know where to draw the line, or who disrupt peace and encroach on other people's rights...)

generally, we human beings are gregarious and live in societies so that we can mutually benefit from each other and protect each other......if we were barbarians by nature, we would have never formed societies in the first place and probably would have wiped each other out leaving no trace of the 'barbarian' human race in the 21st century...

p.s. regarding hobbes......his theory on the nature of men and social contract has been criticised on a number of grounds...i dont want to elaborate on those points since that would be a major digression from the topic of the thread...and one more thing...he too believes in the basic survival instinct of humans...

[soumya_mty]

Originally Posted by Pupil

If you think I have offended you in any ways, please pardon me.

it's ok...i'm not offended...

[orca]

Men harassing women --> mostly physical abuse or threaten to abuse physically (this includes eve teasing, eye-balling et all)

Women harassing men --> always subtle, in fact constant nagging jeena haraam kar deta hai

Women are much more smarter in their approach when it comes to harassing the opposite sex, after all u cant sue anyone for naggin u constantly. There shud be a law that protects men from their nagging wives.

Traditionally men have dominated women but let's face it, women havent really done much to help their own kind.......and the times are now changing. For confirmation ask any B-skooler abt the gender-discrmination he faces during the placement process What shud matter is whats in ur head rather than whats between ur legs

Lemme see how many groans I get for this post

[Pupil]

Originally Posted by orca

Men harassing women --> mostly physical abuse or threaten to abuse physically (this includes eve teasing, eye-balling et all)

Women harassing men --> always subtle, in fact constant nagging jeena haraam kar deta hai

Women are much more smarter in their approach when it comes to harassing the opposite sex, after all u cant sue anyone for naggin u constantly. There shud be a law that protects men from their nagging wives.

Traditionally men have dominated women but let's face it, women havent really done much to help their own kind.......and the times are now changing. For confirmation ask any B-skooler abt the gender-discrmination he faces during the placement process What shud matter is whats in ur head rather than whats between ur legs

Lemme see how many groans I get for this post

Try to find out the number of students going for Phd. You will see that most of the students are females. It is definitely a good thing but it is sad that the reason males aren't pursuing Phd is because they are bound to get an indifferent and cold response from the supervisor. Due to this, there are less male teachers in schools and colleges. It is true that females are more comfortable learning from a female teacher. What about males? Even in schools, boys are subtly forced to give up their masculinity and behave like girls. What will be the effect of this when they grow up? Obviously, women have always criticized masculinity because it reminds them that they aren't physically strong as men.

Usually in the job interview, the looks and the way of talking is taken under consideration and not the qualification and experience. Now that is certainly great for women, only. I have personally spoken to few female HR managers and believe it or not, I am suprised, how the heck did they get this job? For example, I received a call for an interview. I asked the female to give me the address of the office and the phone number. She gave me the address. I asked for the phone number. She reacted. She said, "Why do you want my number?" I fell flat on the floor. Who the heck is interested in knowing her number, I wanted to know the phone number of their office.

Find out the sex ratio in child labour. 75% of the child labour are males, but free education is for females only. Are they not trying to prove that males are good in physical labour and females are good in executive jobs?

In the Group discussion in MBA entrance test, the most common question is, "Are women better manager"? By hook or by crook, these people are forcing us to generalise that if one woman becomes a good manager, then each and every woman is a born good manager. These kind of narrow-minded people are conducting GD for future managers.

If a man wants promotion, he has to work very hard. If a woman wants promotion, well, you'll are pretty street-smart to know what I mean.

I personally believe that whatever is happening, it is good. Because men have always been hostile with each other, thanks to women's subtle ways, and when women are deceptively excelling in their careers, we are forced to put aside our differences and unite and revive our brotherhood, which has always been defamed by women calling it male-chauvinism.

I have seen that men are becoming sensitive toward other men which wasn't the case a few years ago. Maybe they are now realising that when the government is on the frantic spree to protect women, it is prudent to stop protecting women and start thinking about ourselves. At any given point of time, a man's life has always been more tough and gruesome than a woman. We men have weathered almost all crisis and by-god we have achieved our goals. Now the time has come to introspect and see what WE really want and not what the society expects from us.

Long live, the Man.


PS: This isn't an anti-woman comment but obviously all women will find it.

[samsite]

1. Try to find out the number of students going for Phd. You will see that most of the students are females. It is definitely a good thing but it is sad that the reason males aren't pursuing Phd is because they are bound to get an indifferent and cold response from the supervisor. Due to this, there are less male teachers in schools and colleges. It is true that females are more comfortable learning from a female teacher.

are u kidding me? come on mate i dint expect you getting to a conclusion based of half knowledge.If you want i will go on and post 10 valid points as to the various factors that go into women being more inclined towards research and phd (if such thing exists which i seriously doubt as all my proffessors are males).


2.What about males? Even in schools, boys are subtly forced to give up their masculinity and behave like girls. What will be the effect of this when they grow up? Obviously, women have always criticized masculinity because it reminds them that they aren't physically strong as men.


Man you must be out of your mind.Did your teachers force you to act like girls?Did they stop you from playing cricket when girls were playing kho-kho or whatever?or did they force you to eat lunch with such decorum that can leave certain diplomats embarassed at times?dint you run in corridors while other gals stood and watched*kool*. This is just a nonsense point which you cant support no matter what.


3.Usually in the job interview, the looks and the way of talking is taken under consideration and not the qualification and experience. Now that is certainly great for women, only. I have personally spoken to few female HR managers and believe it or not, I am suprised, how the heck did they get this job?

well i agree this is one thing i have seen being as prominent.but this also rises from the fact that companies these days have understood the benefits of the balanced sex ratio in thier staffing and as such thier is a less percentage of women in the industry as compared to thier counterparts.

4.Find out the sex ratio in child labour. 75% of the child labour are males, but free education is for females only. Are they not trying to prove that males are good in physical labour and females are good in executive jobs?

No they are not.Dont you understand the basic tendency of a farmer still remains the same.The boy gets to go to school while the girl remains at home.Things are changing but they havent changed as much.And i dont understand how you co-related the percentage of child labour to education policy or physical labour to females in executive jobs.

Well i can see a lot of contradiction in views of both the parts.At one time a group will brag of being strong physcially and for females to accept it and at the very same time they will end up stating that 75% of child labour is male.Cant you see why 75% of child labour is male from the fact that they are more physically strong .These are the people who need to work for bread.Free education or not it dont matter.They will still work the same way till thier familes have wheat enough to survive the whole weak,month or a year.


5.In the Group discussion in MBA entrance test, the most common question is, "Are women better manager"? By hook or by crook, these people are forcing us to generalise that if one woman becomes a good manager, then each and every woman is a born good manager.

How did you conclude the above?

6.If a man wants promotion, he has to work very hard. If a woman wants promotion, well, you'll are pretty street-smart to know what I mean.

No doubt this thing exists but no one can be blamed for it.The fault exists on both the sides.

7.I personally believe that whatever is happening, it is good. Because men have always been hostile with each other, thanks to women's subtle ways, and when women are deceptively excelling in their careers, we are forced to put aside our differences and unite and revive our brotherhood, which has always been defamed by women calling it male-chauvinism.
I have seen that men are becoming sensitive toward other men which wasn't the case a few years ago. Maybe they are now realising that when the government is on the frantic spree to protect women, it is prudent to stop protecting women and start thinking about ourselves. At any given point of time, a man's life has always been more tough and gruesome than a woman. We men have weathered almost all crisis and by-god we have achieved our goals. Now the time has come to introspect and see what WE really want and not what the society expects from us.

Duuuhhhhhhh men being more sesitive towards other men ,women listening more to other women etc etc etc etc etc........ can all exist.the bottomline is tha a woman cant do without a man and a man cant do widout a woman.At some points of time we realise the diffrence among us and respect creeps in and settles.Soceity is a complex conglomeration for all kind of people who have thier own attitude.some are against the law,some bend the laws others are moral enough.Some have a particular perception which maybe wrong to others as in case of this thread.Among all this furore the central point is not to forget the rational given to us by nature and use it to come to conclusions and decisions which are in harmony with everyone.Err sounds like an idealistic attitude but we can work on integrating maximum people and certainly we can asbtain ourselves from mud slinging esp without using our brains..
GO ON AND KILL EACH OTHER OR LIVE N LET DIE

regards
samsite

[Oxymoron]

Disclaimer: The following post reeks of cynicism,sarcasm,narcissism(?)..and most importantly pleonasm. Dont say I didnt warn you....

The problem with plunging headlong into a thread which 'discusses' gender issues rationally(??) is, one is implictly expected to have a strong viewpoint and take sides. Not withstanding the almost universal scorn for devil's advocates everywhere if one has to pick a topic on which which the participants in the debate view with scorn the role of a devil's advocate the
topics pertaining to gender issues has to take the cake. But still inevitably owing to a congenital affliction for logic and being at pains to see some of the illogically constructed arguments to bolster up a particular view point (not necessarily 'deliberate'..it could be because of an over sight ) I cannot but help throwing in my hat into the ring...

For neutral interested readers of this thread I profess to use extensively the various logical fallacies which I found prima facie on reading the posts in the thread..
Fallacies
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

(Disclaimer: At the risk of sounding 'pedantic' I cant help but point out these links in the vain hope that atlerast some people would be able to see what I am trying to convey. Try not to 'personalize' this as would get us nowhere...)
Even a cursory reading of those fallacies and the posts in this thread would make it abundantly clear how fallacious some of the arguments made are.

A full logical critique of all the points raised (some of them quite good!) by both the sides (Well lets face it so far there has hardly been a participant who wants to take a 'neutral' stand not because he is confused but simply because the facts,inferences and assumptions are not sufficient enough to come a conclusion which would help one take a concrete stand...) though is the need of the hour I am afraid I cannot volunteer to do it now owing to the time constraints. But still here and there I guess one can point out the quite obvious fallacies...*atleast* what I think about it..

Well enough of the 'pompous' introduction I guess...leave your 'passion' aside and consider my questions with an open mind..otherwise it is a waste of your time and what is even more criminal waste of my time...

Also in passing to get a 'decent' perspective of the history of role of women in the progress of human civilization may I strongly recommend The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir ? ( I havent completed the book yet so a complete review not possible yet but more than half way through and most of her view points are logically impeccable! one may not necesarily agree with some of her conclusions but it does make one think..)

Note : when I say 'man' I refer to the species homo sapiens per se which obviously includes both the genders. For the gender distinction I prefer to m. of the s. (male of the species )and f. of the s. (female of the species ) with the general definition of what constitutes a 'male' and 'female' in biological terms.

Originally Posted by pupil

There has been excessive hoopla about male-dominated society, and quite understandably, from modern radical feminists of India. What is this male-dominated society where not a single man thinks so? Why only women harp about male-dominated society and men never? If at all it is a male-dominated society, then how come women make the rules and men
have to protect and provide women? If it is a male-dominated society then how come women have always dominated men? It is the same deception women uses.

This is a classic case of hasty generalization. Where is the empirical data? on what basis was this conclusion made that this is true for 'most of the m. of the s.'? On what basis can you say 'women have dominated men"?? Please expatiate on it otherwise it has be to dismissed as empty rhetoric. And NO newspaper clippings or 'expert' articles from the redoubtable TOI dont count as 'evidence'.

Originally Posted by pupil

For centuries, men are fulfilling the obligation of protecting and providing for his family, which predominantly includes his dear wife. It has been taught to all men since childhood that he has to live his life for his family and not for himself. Repeatedly, all his sacrifice to keep his family happy has never been recognized or appreciated by the society for the basic fact that it is his inherent obligation, a liability that he has to comply for being a male gender in the country like India. He slogs all day only to see his family’s wishes come true and he never gets disappointed when the woman of the family takes all the credit of a happy family.

Well there are plenty of reasons why early man evolved such a 'societal structure'. There is nothing 'sentimental' about it. It makes more logical sense for a primordial hunting society the m. of the s. who is physically stronger ( There is nothing 'sexist' about it. It is a biological fact ) to go and 'hunt'the animals. What exactly happened is ofcourse just conjectural but the inferences one can draw from the mural paintings and the early structure of civilization one can logically deduce it. But the moot point is our present society is not a 'hunting' one. It is inevitable as the society progresses the changes in role becomes inevitable. Refusal to adapt means we perish. As simple as that

And pupil rest of your posts have similar reasoning. If you appeal to emotion you are winning no brownie points I am afriad. This is unfortunately not a Oprah Winfrey show.

@soumya_mty (post no 7 ) That was a decent rebuttal and I didnt find anything to cavil at.

Originally Posted by pupil

Women are victims of domestic violence but not providing the protective laws for men too is wrong. Men too are victims of domestic violence and refusing to protect them reveals your intentions to strangulate men's rights. Protecting women from domestic violence is welcomed but why men are not included? Numbers don't matter in enactment of laws. And even if it does, then there is no social mechanism available for men to complain against his wife and so there are hardly any statistical proofs to prove that men are silently suffering in their own house. Men are brought up in your dear patriarchy system and that is why he refuses to complain about his own suffering and strives to protect women. And women like you are taking
every possible advantage of this situation and at the same time criticize patriarchy to receive a clean chit from the society.

Yup..some pretty good points...but then on what basis was the assumption made that f. of the s. are preventing the men from having 'protective' laws? :huh: That to me seems a bit paranoiac. Yes there indeed could be some men who are suffering from domestic abuse but then the fact that
they are not coming out in public has more likely to do with the effect on the psyche which the patriarchical system has had on the men than any other reason. But yes admittedly this is purely conjectural.

Originally Posted by warrior

that's the real problem. given a free will to use a knife almost all will use to butcher somebody.If we human were so altruistic you won't be needing all these laws and panduus

May I ask on what basis you make this categorical statement? :whatthat: and no you cannot take refuge in the word' almost' I am curious to know what gave you this interpretation of 'free will'. original Sin? Think man is inherently 'evil'? Why?

Originally Posted by pupil

Let’s see how many more such women-centric serials will come and go. The damage is already been done. Showing men as criminals and women as victims is apparently a winning formula in television serial business.

That is the crux of the thing...it is just pure commercial sense to make such serials. Nothing more nothing less. I think it's paranoia to think it is the devious scheme of women to mass hypnotize the society.. It makes money and that's what the serials are there for.

Originally Posted by Warrior

According to Bertrand Russell moral evil or sin is derived from the instincts that have been transmitted to us from our ancestry of beasts of prey. This ancestry originated when certain animals became omnivorous and employed predation (killing and thievery) in order periodically to ingurgitate the flesh as well as the fruit and produce of other once-living
things to support metabolism in competition with other animals for scarce food-animal and food-plant sources in the predatory environment in which we evolved. Thus, the simple fact that we humans must eat other life or else starve, die and rot is the probable primordial origin of contemporary and historical moral evil; i.e., the bad things we do to each other by lying,
cheating, slandering, thieving and slaughtering.

where did you get that from? I am still at a loss how you can relate the habits of predatory animals to the 'sins'(?) of the modern man....I am not denying there isnt a co-relation (because I dont know ) but I fail to see it as the causative factor.

@soumya_mty (post no. 25 ) good post! Though the point of 'basic human instincts' is disputatious. That begs the question of when did man become 'human'.

Originally Posted by orca

Traditionally men have dominated women but let's face it, women havent really done much to help their own kind.......and the times are now changing. For confirmation ask any B-skooler abt the gender-discrmination he faces during the placement process What shud matter
is whats in ur head rather than whats between ur legs

Though this seems like a gross generalization but yes admittedly a kind of gender 'affirmation' is indeed taking place and not always merit is awarded.

Originally Posted by pupil

Try to find out the number of students going for Phd. You will see that most of the students are females. It is definitely a good thing but it is sad that the reason males aren't pursuing Phd is because they are bound to get an indifferent and cold response from the supervisor. Due to this, there are less male teachers in schools and colleges. It is true that
females are more comfortable learning from a female teacher. What about males? Even in schools, boys are subtly forced to give up their masculinity and behave like girls. What will be the effect of this when they grow up? Obviously, women have always criticized masculinity because
it reminds them that they aren't physically strong as men.

from wherefore dost thou get these 'facts' from and your conclusions mostly seem non sequitur to me! :huh: What exactly does the number of females doing phd ( where did you get this data from? :huh: ) has to do with the 'male discrimination'? Isnt it a classic case of
false dillema??? Even Steven Levitt backed up his fantastic convlusions with irrefutable logic and statistical data...

Originally Posted by pupil

In the Group discussion in MBA entrance test, the most common question is, "Are women better manager"? By hook or by crook, these people are forcing us to generalise that if one woman becomes a good manager, then each and every woman is a born good manager. These kind
of narrow-minded people are conducting GD for future managers.

Yup I have found this question absolutely ridiculous too and in one campus interview in my college days questioned the bias of the topic during the interview. But one cannot read much into it. the inetrviews were guys and I can only assume they were trying to gauge the 'gender sensitivity' of the candidates. Though if you ask me personally I think it was bollocks.

Originally Posted by pupil

If a man wants promotion, he has to work very hard. If a woman wants promotion, well, you'll are pretty street-smart to know what I mean.

Eh? Who told you 'sleeping with the boss' is sine qua non for 'promotion'? one swallow doesnt a summer make and I am no economist but am pretty sure how good a person is in the bed is not going to have much impact on the bottomline of the company...even if it is the make-believe porn industry.. If the person doesnt person the person sooner or later is ousted out.(ignoring exceptional cases of nepotism ofcourse ). So making such categorical statements hardly bolsters up your viewpoint

Well anyway that's that....:huh:

And shall we all please stop abusing the 'thank yous' and 'groans' by 'ganging up' against each other? :huh: It looks quite silly to me...and am sure to lots of them as well.
Yes we all have our biases but the whole point of discussion is to reduce it as much as possible.

Anyway what is with us species to throw raitonality out of the window and making sweeping statements especially when it comes to the gender issues? :huh:

Oh well..what the hell...

Girish...!

p.s.. I would very much appreciate if you have any valid and constructive arguments,points against what I have 'written'...resist any temptation to get ad hominem.
p.p.s @pupil Am renaming the thread to "Male dominated Society: How true is the cliche? " this is your thread ..if you want some other relevant title and think this doesnt convey the point feel free to pm me...

p.p.p.s. Yes you guessed it right..this moves to 'chit chat' section...