This is an interesting thought...

I was chatting with a friend the other day and she brought up an interesting question about the Garden of Eden:

What if God first created the male human being...but gave him the power to give birth to children? Then let's assume that the woman had masculinity, and all of that jazz, and tempted the "man" in the story to eat the apple? Would that affect gender roles in society, because of it's importance in the Bible, or is the story of Adam and Eve a byproduct of society, and the gender roles could not have been reversed?

I personally believe that the Adam and Eve story is a byproduct of society, and thus the gender roles would not have been reversed, otherwise it would not have achieved such status in today's society. However, you could argue this one both ways.

We learned in World History last year that the male-dominant gender roles mostly arose from the start of civilization, with the rise of male warrior-heroes.

So yeah, definitely by-product. Hmm... don't we also have some Biblical tales or other important historical texts with women doing great traditionally-male things too?

Oh yeah, and some of our gender roles are inherent in our biology. Take, for example, gender roles in other species. Typically, they're male hunter/warrior and female caretaker.

This makes sense biologically, because females have that one very vulnerable gestation period. You can't have the hunter/defender be that physically vulnerable for that long.

and one week out of every month of extreme irritablilty and pain, thats pretty vulnerable too... *cringe*

The story i've always heard is that women were believed to be inherently evil because woman tempted man... and so they should be suppressed lest said evil tendancies control society.

Well, the people who wrote the bible were obviously influence by their male-dominated society at the time, and so wrote the bible in a way that would make males sound better as to please the top ones in charge (The men)

Well, Eve was created from Adam's ribs, but what if Adam tried to rip out Eve's rib?

Then Eve would be in extreme pain, since only god can rip out ribs to make more people.

or she would just be in extreme pain... period.

somehow i find that statement incredibly funny...

Whats so funny about it?

*shrug* something, i guess

BUT! Maybe they can't use "labor" all the time as the "worst pain ever." Every time they use that as an excuse we can say, "Oh yeah? Eve had her ribs ripped out for no God-forsaken reason."

*huff* but noone knows what it feels like to have a rib ripped out, and most people say that childbirth is the worst pain ever... never having gone through it i cant say, but things that are alledgedly close are pretty painful. I am not going to explain that, if you are thinking of asking...

Why, yes I was. But i agree that childbirth is very painful. At least I never have to experience it. But there are probably more painful things.

name something....

and remember that with a lot of injuries, its common to go into shock and not feel the pain right away.... i dont think thats true for childbirth, considering you arnt going to be shocked that your giving birth

There are plenty of things. Complete Hyper-extension of the knee or arm. Just as an example.

*shudder* granted, that would be pretty painful, but im still skeptical...

and how many people do you know who have completely hyperextended their leg or arm compared to how many people you know who have given birth?

How about getting your ears torn off with a sort-of blunt knife, then having your toes chewed off by a dog. Then, your fingers are broken a little bit every day untill they are all gone. Then, for the next hour your genitals are slowly cut untill they shrivell up. I'm sure thats more painful.

well i dunno, it would be rather difficult for my genitals to be slowly cut until they shrivel up, and if anyone succeeded in actually doing so, i would probably be dead. And I also think that what you said is a) more than one thing being pretty painful, and is an unnatural pain. Humans are not supposed to have their ears torn off by a blunt knife, but they are supposed to give birth.

but yes, that would be pretty painful, if you didnt die first, from bleeding and stuff... which you probably would.

I suppose you're right. Not that I would know, but my mom would. But you must admit there has to be UNNATURAL things more painful then giving birth.

yes, definitely. But natural and common, its the most painful thing that a lot of the population has to go through

Well, cut out for you.

But then, everything is unnatural, since certain man-made events cause childbirth. And, I was talking about torture, which is one thing.

well in a way, but then... humans are supposed to give birth, but they are not supposed to torture one another

Well then why do you think that we are wired to fight and kill each other?

explain that statement?

It's natural human nature to fight, I don't know about touture.


Ug, many reasons. Land, money, power, gals.

Well, we are a violent species. We have a tendancy to fight and kill one and other. If you look back in time then you can see throughout history humans have always been fighting and kill each other. So, a form of that violence might be torture, since it has happened, and was not always caused by deranged people. It is, in a way, natural. We would prefer it not to be, but it is.




That was a rethorical question, by the way.

The Adam and Eve story in the Bible definitely has had an impact on how gender roles are percieved. In fact the story has been used by many religious sects throughout history to justify male dominence.

However, I do not think it is the *root* of this male dominence. Male dominence in both the ancient and recent past has more to do I think with the perception that men are "stronger" than women and therefore more "useful" in physical labours. Add the fact that testosterone is found predominently in guys and this simply amplifies to the view.

Here's another thing: The perceptions of gender roles is very generational. Think about during WWII, when women throughout the United States went to do "man's" jobs. They proved their physical strength through this. However, once the war was over there was still an incredible amount of sexism. Why? Because it was still the same generation of men before the war who were running things. They still had their engrained beliefs. The next generation however began to see things differently.

But there's also the point that it might be biological to be sexist. I agree with that theory more.

Biology is of course a factor. However that is only one factor of many. Though there may be biological roots, there is also cultural and social reinforcements. If one changes the social/cultural views, one can diminish any inherent sexism.

But if we are biologically made to be sexist, then our culture and society will push that term further out of our subconcious into our concious thoughts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

Hmm, biology causes sexism? But there were old civilizations where women were more important than men, I think.

And I somehow doubt that acting all haughty would've given males an evolutionary advantage.

Well, your own suggestion proves it. You once said that the gestation period was a very vernerable time. So, biologically, since every female is meant to go through that, it makes more sense to make males the fighters. And, since in most societies are dominated by military excellence, the males would become the leaders.



Yes, it would. The men in charge would get the women, then the civilization could expand. The civilization would also expand through war and conquest, so the biologically meant to be warriors, the men, would also be held in higher esteem because of that.

Yes but you're talking about society and civilization. Civilization hasn't really been around that long.

mycnknm has a point: native americans valued women because they continued the society...

And so did the Minoans.

THere will always be anomalies in history. However, most dominant forms of society have restricted the rights of women until they have matured to a point where women can self-sustain themselves, which is the point at which society usually lets women have their own rights.

Women were dependent on males in early civilization where the only employment would be to do heavy labor, which women would be unable to do during certain times, plus, added to their physical disadvantage as smaller and less muscular beings with less testosterone.

Even now, most discrimination against women lies in their ability to give birth to children. For example, corporations are less likely to invest in training and giving knowledge of how things work to a working women if there is a chance that they might get pregnant and have to take maternity leave, or leave the company altogether and turn into a stay-at-home mom.

Because there is this extra risk for corporations, they will tend to avert this risk or absorb the cost by paying women less. Thus, the smaller salaries of women are (shoot me for this) perhaps justified as insurance for the extra cost and less return on investment. By having equal salaries for both men and women, both men and women would get lower salaries because they would all have to absorb the loss. This would actually hurt the stay-at-home moms by giving them less money (because their husband would make less money), and not impact families with two working parents (because their salaries would average out).

oh no, their keeping the human race going, we better not give them any rights cause its a huge disadvantage to humanity to have extra humans, because when we grow old we want to have to support ourselves, instead of having the younger stronger workers pay taxes that support us so that we can go out in the world and have fun.

No, no, we dont want anyone to pay for our lives for us, do we? Of course not. Therefore we're going to discriminate against the women in order to discourage them from having babies (perhaps higher salaries for those on contraceptives?) so that the population wont be furthered and there will be no one there to support us in our old age. Sound like a plan?

---

See? women get the short end of the deal no matter what. To give birth: women get pleasure, then 9 months of pain, suffering, and mood swings, then a damn painful childbirth, then have to take care of the child, sometimes with little or no help from the childs father (see "Where have all the cowboys gone" by Paula Cole). Guys? oh yeah, they get the pleasure, and then all they have to do is listen to their wife/signifigant other complain. If they want to, and are devoted to her. Otherwise he can just skip out and never be heard from again, get some more of his pleasure from other women who have to then go through the whole 9 months of pain and suffering. And for her to get an abortion? dont get me wrong, maybe you dont have to raise the baby, but its not as if that isnt painful either. Legal clinics even cause some pain, and illegally it can kill you. And that isnt even mentioning the emotional pain of an abortion....

So, Lappy, i do kind of want to shoot you, because in the long run, big corporations are screwing themselves (literally and figuratively i guess) by paying women less. Because, in the long run, it is the work of the woman (who they payed less) that may be their social security payment when they get older. Sure, paying us less may be a good business model in the short term, because they are (theoretically) less productive than men. But in reality, we get more done, because we go through the pain and suffering necesary to bring more, younger (and necesarily stronger) workers to the corporation. The men just do it for fun.

And i read somewhere that women tend to be 3 times as efficient as men. I dont know where that came from or how credible it is, but i do know women are much better multitaskers than men.

So there.

Well we do have an overpopulation problem...

lol i have a solution. When i perfect it, i'll email it to you, eh?

hm... you never did find out my email, now did you...

but anyways its not necesarily the womans fault, its the guys that get them pregnant, eh? The women just have to suffer and then get guilt tripped for overpopulating the earth.

Hi im oversensitive

I wholeheartedly agree with lappy. If I were a corporation, I wouldn't want to hire somebody who took months off because she was having a child - not at an equal pay. Its better to pay them less (the ones who wish to have a child, anyway) and thus save money.

One thing I don't understand is why so many "modern liberal feminist" women have started the train of thought that a stay-at-home mom is a bad thing. In fact, it would be preferable to one who works because raising a child is an essential part of society and civilization. Without women who take care of the house, where would the nuclear family, or even the family at all, be? Look at modern day society - more divorces, abortions, and family trauma occurs because of this thinking. Its fine for women to work if they absolutely need the money, but if the family is well off anyway, then there's no reason to.

@purrflicta: If you feel so strongly about the pains of having a child, then why have one in the first place? Surely its not because the joy of raising children is worth the initial pain?

ok, so why not just not give paid maternity leave and pay the women equal? I know, that wouldnt be well taken by the women, but at least they're paid equally.

Heres what i'll say about divorce: i dont think the lack of nuclear family and the rate of women working. Actually, even in the 50's (good wifes guide) about half the women worked out of necesity.

you also forget that sometimes the woman works and the (omg) man stays home and raises the kid.

and to be honest, im not afraid of the pain... and i also am considering adoption. But thats a ways away, ya know?

It is to my supposition that men and women are adept at divergent, yet equally critical, skills and abilities.

um. I dont quite know how to respond to that. maybe i should just sick lappys warn stick on you. may i?

pleez pleez pleez pleez pleez??????

@ KC: no worrys i dont want to shoot you anymore lol

Hmm, most pregnancies happen within wedlock, don't they?

i dont know the statistics but i do know a lot of pregnancies do not happen within wedlock.

and 75% of all teen pregnancies are unplanned.

and 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.