Why did male dominated social structure become more sustainable? Does modern science has any support? Why didn't female dominated social systems persist? What are the reasons other than social reasons?

My guess would be something to do with men doing more physical labor.

my guess would be something to do with men doing more physical labor.
How is it (physical power) exactly related to sustainability of social structure?

Maybe physical labor wasn't the right term now that I'm thinking about it more. But think back to how many females there are recorded in any military? Men fought for territory, men then ruled the territory. They fought for it, built on it, and ruled it. It's not that women are incapable of doing any of those things, but it was the men who did it. Because, I don't know, I guess maybe the only real expectation of women then was to raise children and cook? So the men went to war and what not?
Like I said before, these are my guesses.

maybe physical labor wasn't the right term now that i'm thinking about it more. but think back to how many females there are recorded in any military? men fought for territory, men then ruled the territory. they fought for it, built on it, and ruled it. it's not that women are incapable of doing any of those things, but it was the men who did it. because, idk, i guess maybe the only real expectation of women then was to raise children and cook? so the men went to war and what not?
like i said before, these are my guesses.
Yes, may you are right. Additionally When woman does develop muscular power, her reproductive system (muscles & hormones) do get affected. This may be the additional reason why she wasn't allowed to do physical exertions.
But I want to know if all these guesses have any proof in modern science.
- Nutan

What? How have I never heard of that? Are you talking about extremes? Because I have heard that if you like really really intenseley work out and are overdoing it it effects you, but what about normally keeping in shape? That seems like it would be better?

what?! how have i never heard of that? are you talking about extremes? because i have heard that if you like really really intenseley work out and are overdoing it it effects you, but what about jst normally keeping in shape? that seems like it would be better?
Yes, only if exerted extremely, a woman is likely to affect her reproductive system adversely. Of course keeping in shape won't harm.
But again my original question remains unanswered - is there any proof in modern medicine for sustainability of Male dominated social structures?

I don't know if this really answers your question either, but we happened to be talking about genes and DNA in my science class and the teacher was pointing out how the Y chromosome is so small and how little it effects anything other than genitalia and the difference in hormones (this might be a little bit biast because she's a little bit of an extreme feminist), and how the X chromosomes can basically cancel out sex related diseases in women as long as the disease isn't on both X's but if a man ends up with a disease on his X chromosome he gets the disease. So, that makes me think that there is no proof in modern medicine because that makes it seem like women should have an advantage.

idk if this really answers your question either, but we happened to be talking about genes and DNA in my science class and the teacher was pointing out how the Y chromosome is so small and how little it effects anything other than genitalia and the difference in hormones (this might be a little bit biast because she's a lil bit of an extreme feminist), and how the X chromosomes can basically cancel out sex related diseases in women as long as the disease isn't on both X's but if a man ends up with a disease on his X chromosome he gets the disease. so, that makes me think that there is no proof in modern medicine because that makes it seem like women should have an advantage.
Couldn't get exactly what you mean to convey. 'Woman should have an advantage' of WHAT?
How this whole thing is related to persistence of Male Dominated Social Structure?

women should have an advantage of surviving in general if you only look at that. The way sex-linked "diseases" (can't think of a more accurate term right now) work is, for women, we have 2 X chromosomes. So let's say susie q gets an X chromosome frm her father that's normal, but then an X chromosome from her mother for color blindness, she's not going to be colorblind because the X chromosome from her father will override the trait from her mother. But later susie q marries a colorblind man. We know that his X chromosome carries the trait of colorblindness, that's the only X chromosome he can pass on to his children. So if they have a daughter and susie q passes on the X chromosome with colorblindness, her daughter is going to be colorblind because she inherits the trait from both of her X chromosomes from her parents, there's nothing to override it. And whether the couple's son was colorblind would depend on which X chromosome the mother passed on, because we know that the father would be passing on his Y chromosome. So if the mother were to pass on the X chromosome with colorblindness to her son he would be colorblind because there would be nothing to override it again. Does that make sense?
obviously seeing or not seeing color isn't going to make or break a society but there are a number of sex-linked diseases (I actually mean diseases too this time). For example, the disease the little boy had in the movie lorenzo's oil, I think its called als (?). The little boy can't talk, eat, move, or anything. Its really sad actually but the point is that he suffers from a sex-linked illness.
so, that little bit of information suggests that woman should have an advantage, because we suffer less sex-linked illnesses than men

It makes little sense in 2008. How much muscle is needed to pull a trigger?

Socially, males are "superior" because they have more ego. Ego is good in that it reminds us that we are separate from one another. Too much of it and things get unbalanced. Just imagine if women had written the Bible, the Koran or the Torah. What religion has been started by a woman? Women are more balanced and less in need of "showing the world" how great it is to have them in it.

Just my opinion at the moment.

I agree it doesn't make sense today, but what society started just in 2008?

The ego and the religion are good points though. I hadn't even thought of that. Thinking about it now though, are there even any religions that don't put women below men? Hm... maybe these religious men were more manipulative than I've ever realized?

Religion has greatly shaped the social structure of society. Society is unbalanced in that it is male based, based on religion.

women should have an advantage of surviving in general if you only look at that. The way sex-linked "diseases" (can't think of a more accurate term right now) work is, for women, we have 2 X chromosomes. so let's say susie q gets an X chromosome frm her father thats normal, but then an X chromosome from her mother for color blindness, she's not going to be colorblind because the X chromosome from her father will override the trait from her mother. But later susie q marries a colorblind man. we know that his X chromosome carries the trait of colorblindness, that's the only X chromosome he can pass on to his children. so if they have a daughter and susie q passes on the X chromosome with colorblindness, her daughter is going to be colorblind because she inherits the trait from both of her X chromosomes from her parents, there's nothing to override it. and whether or not the couple's son was colorblind would depend on which X chromosome the mother passed on, because we know that the father would be passing on his Y chromosome. so if the mother were to pass on the X chromosome with colorblindness to her son he would be colorblind because there would be nothing to override it again. does that make sense?
obviously seeing or not seeing color isn't going to make or break a society but there are a number of sex-linked diseases (i actually mean diseases too this time). for example, the disease the little boy had in the movie lorenzo's oil, i think its called als (?). the little boy can't talk, eat, move, or anything. its really sad actually but the point is that he suffers from a sex-linked illness.
so, that little bit of information suggests that woman should have an advantage, because we suffer less sex-linked illnesses than men
But, if women are less susceptible to sex-linked diseases or have more chances of survival, then 'Woman Dominated Social Structure' should have persisted. Why exactly opposite happened?

It makes little sense in 2008. How much muscle is needed to pull a trigger?

Socially, males are "superior" because they have more ego. Ego is good in that it reminds us that we are separate from one another. Too much of it and things get unbalanced. Just imagine if women had written the Bible, the Koran or the Torah. What religion has been started by a woman? Women are more balanced and less in need of "showing the world" how great it is to have them in it.

Just my opinion at the moment.

1) Women HAVE written religious scripts! Vishwavara is one of the contributor to Rigveda - the Vedic Religious script. (In vedic & Hindu religions there is no single religious script. These religions are developed over a period of thousand years and irrespective of sex, caste or creed all humans have contributed to the current status of these religions.) Lopamudra, Gargi, Maitreyee, Parvati, Saraswati, Indrani these are some examples of women who set religious rules in Vedic, Puranic society. (Hermeneutics that deals with cultivating the ability to understand a text by placing it in context of its times and the society in which it was located; and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that might have influenced its outlook. The spirit of Hermeneutics is essential to understand and appreciate an ancient text-ref.:Rig Veda – Position of women (1/2) : Rig Veda – Position of women (1/2), sreenivasarao s blogs on sulekha, Religion blogs, sreenivasarao s blog from india (http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/10/rig-veda-position-of-women-1-2.htm))
2) Actually women are more showy, need to Show off even the slightest things.
3) Women are more extreme or less balanced than men, in those societies where they are more entangled with household duties and less responsible for social transactions.

In short, Indian society ( from vedic to current trend) is Male Dominated though women in this society contributed to Religious rule books, though they had a combination of restrictions & freedom, though they had Women Army. So physical power, genetic susceptibility, contribution to religion - these don't seem to be the more convincing points why Male Dominated Social Structures persisted. Something else or more is required happen this.

Now I think, is it the concept of 'Purity of vulva' for having of better descendants, which kept women under protection of men? And then all other reasons - physical power etc. - supported to this root concept?

i agree it doesn't make sense today, but what society started just in 2008?

the ego and the religion are good points tho. i hadn't even thought of that. thinking about it now tho, are there even any religions that don't put women below men?? hm...maybe these religious men were more manipulative than i've ever realized?

TRUE

The society I live in is dominated by the christian churches, their dogma, and their sky-god.

The society I live in appreciates the logic of Sotrates to the exclusion of the less logical strengths of women.

People who write to AMHD from India are either lost boys or beaten down, confused women. That is what I have seen and remembered.

The society I live in is dominated by the christian churches, their dogma, and their sky-god.

The society I live in appreciates the logic of Sotrates to the exclusion of the less logical strengths of women.

People who write to AMHD from India are either lost boys or beaten down, confused women. That is what I have seen and remembered.

Can you please explain this? - "logic of Sotrates to the exclusion of the less logical strengths of women"

Socrates was a Greek who, through his teaching and writings brought logical thinking to the forefront of society. In most schools, we are taught to think in terms of logic, debate and rebuttal based on the available data. This data is considered most reliable when written down and printed for everyone to read. When someone on this site requests documentation, they are asking for reference to something written down, and therefore possibly true and tangibly arguable. This way of thinking is valuable and has become the "normal" way to think in most western society.

However, logical thinking is frequently much easier for males. It tends to be black and white to the point of excluding any other information. For instance, as a woman, I often know things without any "facts." When something is wrong with a car, 80% of the time I "know" what it is. No one ever listens to my idea until the mechanic looks the car over and confirms my intuition.

Unlearned (through logic) knowledge is considered by many to be devil worship, witchcraft and outright bull. Since there is no way to document, study and dissect it, it is therefore non-logical and "useless." As a woman my thoughts are often "useless" and written off unless they are written down in accordance with the rules of logic for study. Women are frequently considered untrustworthy when they do not follow the dictates of Socrates, thus males are supported in society.

Socrates was a Greek who, through his teaching and writings brought logical thinking to the forefront of society. In most schools, we are taught to think in terms of logic, debate and rebuttal based on the available data. This data is considered most reliable when written down and printed for everyone to read. When someone on this site requests documentation, they are asking for reference to something written down, and therefore possibly true and tangibly arguable. This way of thinking is valuable and has become the "normal" way to think in most western society.

However, logical thinking is frequently much easier for males. It tends to be black and white to the point of excluding any other information. For instance, as a woman, I often know things without any "facts." When something is wrong with a car, 80% of the time I "know" what it is. No one ever listens to my idea until the mechanic looks the car over and confirms my intuition.

Unlearned (through logic) knowledge is considered by many to be devil worship, witchcraft and outright bull. Since there is no way to document, study and dissect it, it is therefore non-logical and "useless." As a woman my thoughts are often "useless" and written off unless they are written down in accordance with the rules of logic for study. Women are frequently considered untrustworthy when they do not follow the dictates of Socrates, thus males are supported in society.

If socrates was the first to bring logical thinking to the forefront of society, what about the knowledge and thought processes he inherited?
Isn't there anything logical and arguable which not written but can be experienced by all? Wasn't the knowledge and thinkings prior to socrates logical just because it wasn't written?
(yet i am not referring to the knowledge and thinking developed in societies other than western cultures.)
Isn't queen of england trustworthy just because she is a woman. The first computer programmer was lady ada - a woman. All so called logically thinking men are nurtured by their mothers - how come they become logical thinkers though their mothers being women aren't logical?
Does modern science prove that sex determines the logical thinking?
Anyway my original question was whether modern science has any reasoning why male dominated social structures persisted?

Modern science is observed, studied, experimented on... stuff. Then it is written in an article, logically and according to the rules so that it will be published. Modern thinking and writing (and government) began around the time of Socrates and Plato.

Modern science has found that (this may be disproved, already) male babies become male when exposed to a certain hormone? In the womb. Their brains are "damaged" by this process. The separateness of the two brain halves is more complete than it is in girls. The "damaged" brain is more able to focus, on math for instance. But the male brain has trouble with seeing everything at once--so to speak. The details are lost in the focus.

Society, valuing a logical and focused approach favors men.

Modern science is observed, studied, experimented on...stuff. Then it is written in an article, logically and according to the rules so that it will be published. Modern thinking and writing (and government) began around the time of Socrates and Plato.

Modern science has found that (this may be disproved, already) male babies become male when exposed to a certain hormone? in the womb. Their brains are "damaged" by this process. The separateness of the two brain halves is more complete than it is in girls. The "damaged" brain is more able to focus, on math for instance. But the male brain has trouble with seeing everything at once--so to speak. The details are lost in the focus.

Society, valuing a logical and focused approach favors men.

Logically thinking, i need some proof for whatever you have quoted here.
Is there any conclusion based on some experimentation, by some world known/recognized research persons /bodies? Any documentation?
Photographs/digital analysis of male and women brains?

And there you are, asking for documentation. Do you want something you can hold, see? That makes it arguable and logical? Otherwise, it must be made up...

If you are that interested, the internet is a good source. There's also the library. Or you could just sit in your living room and observe, it's really obvious.

And there you are, asking for documentation. Do you want something you can hold, see? That makes it arguable and logical? Otherwise, it must be made up...

If you are that interested, the internet is a good source. There's also the library. Or you could just sit in your living room and observe, it's really obvious.

Now, this is not logical! I expected you to provide proofs, at least for your own statements! Any key or clues for proofs?

Of course it isn't logical! I am not a guy. The information is all over the place but referencing it would mean that I support logic as the way to go and I don't. So, I'm being a smarty-pants. Would you like me to change my mind several times about this? I easily can. LOL.

Your original question referred to male-dominated society. I guess I really don't know how to help answer it. I tried but then you started using all capital letters. That's yelling, you know. Then you began debating, and I gave up on the idea that you were trying to learn about something.