ShaktiSama
Posts: 1674
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Whew. Just look at the moronic misogyny fly. 
Personal favorite thus far: the person who uses his degree in psychology to pursue "clinical studies" to validate a worldview based on his patriarchist sexual and political orientation!
Lol...man, that is classic Bushreich science. I love the modern Ahnenerbe.
Second favorite argument: "The world is a Big Scary Place and you wimmens need a big strong man to protect you..." Lol...really? Funny, I've heard this argument before--but in truth, the greatest threat that human females face in the wild and the world is ALWAYS, and WITHOUT FAIL, the males of their own species.
Patriarchy is nothing more and nothing less than a protection racket, folks--"behave yourself, do as we say and give us whatever we want, and MAYBE we won't rape and murder you, butcher your children, burn your home and crops, yadda yadda."
The fact that so many cultures are founded on gender-based terrorism has nothing to do with human biology per se. Patriarchal societies encourage this terroristic behavior because it upholds their worldview and power dynamics within the society. They tend to wipe out any other cultural model they encounter not only because they cannot allow a competing reality to challenge their naturalized oppression, but simply because patriarchal cultures are better at producing surplus human beings and using them for destructive ends.
Such cultures are a plague, for all intents and purposes. They are "superior" only in the sense that they are all-devouring. Locusts are not a "superior" form of life because they are more destructive than other organisms!
Regardless, justifying male dominance in terms of biology is simply puerile--and even people who think they are supporting female supremacy in this thread are 1) unable to understand the real implications of the few biological facts at their command and 2) unable to separate biological factors from culturally trained behavior in humans (i.e. performance in school, gender-based passtimes, propensity to violence, etc.).
Of course, what's even more amazing is that just about any woman who opposes this sort of nonsense on these forums will tend to get an automatic reputation as a sexist bigot. The question is--how much more naked can this crap possibly be? Are people really this blind to how deeply they assume that males are entitled to be violent and oppressive? Or that females "need" to be subjected to male authority or control? 'Cause seriously, folks...some of these posts are just sickening.
Any system of relations which favors one biological sex of human beings over the other is arbitrary. Both matriarchal and patriachal models exist in both living societies today AND in the archaeological record. Given this fact, which is irrefutable, the notion that any one type of gender-based hierarchy is "necessary" or "natural" to our species is simply...false.
And laughable.
Biologically speaking? Human sexual dimorphism is actually very minor, relative to that of many other species--even among primates. As to the functions served by males in "biologically standard" multi-male, multi-female communities, pregnant females can just as easily be aided and defended by other females as by males.
It is true that males are a variation of sort on the "female" standard in biology--sexual reproduction is a more recent invention than self-reproduction, and the female variant of any species tends to represent the more ancient form. In humans, the Y chromosome is much smaller and codes for much less protein than the X--which is why all males still need an X, and why sex-linked biological defects tend to manifest more in the male than in the female.
Males sometimes suffer less robust health in infancy, as well, but this is actually very minor.
Males are more biologically expendable, yes, given that we are mammals and that under normal conditions human infants cannot be born or survive the first two years of life without a maternal investment. But this is true of the males of almost all species on this planet, mammalian or not. The only thing that makes males LESS expendable in any species that uses sex to reproduce is a heavy paternal investment in offspring (i.e., when males are nurturant parents for an important stage of development, as in some bird species).
Regardless...ugh. Najak is right. This thread is a LOT of stupid in one place. Folks need to do some reading. There HAS been work done in physical anthropology and primate studies since the 1970's, folks. I promise. We're not still stuck beating our chests over male baboons. 
_____________________________
"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
|
RE: Female Supremacy? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread