Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
[edited to add : you might want to print this and put it in the bathroom or something]
Now you've done it. I'm not even using fast reply.
Back when Mankind settled, and by that I mean made settlements rather than being nomadic, the respective roles of Men and Women became defined by nature and necessity.
Back in the days of earlier civilisation, or a bit before, there were certain realities, which, if they had been ignored we would not be here.
As people began to build homes, they pretty much stayed put, and certain things became apparent. Men and Women had of course found each other, and even though it may go against the polyamorous they formed unions one on one. Of course the Woman got pregnant, no matter if this was a marriage, fornication under consent of King, jumping the broom or just a twinkle in the eye for each other. Neighbors existed, but miles away and people had to be self sufficient. There was no help available.
At some point in human history, the complimentary roles of Men and Women were defined. It would be illogical for a Woman to plow a field or build a barn with an infant suckling at her breast. Of course sex was fun so she usually got pregnant more than once. If not there would be alot less people to say the least. If each couple only had one child, a problem develops sooner or later, a good analogy would be that you can only cut a slice of butter in half so many times. Multiple children were the norm.
Although Women were generally not as delicate in those times when pregnant, and could help with the hard work, eventually there was a crew of kids who needed constant supervision and frequent feedings. Since the Woman bore the children, and posessed the breats with which to feed them, their role was clearly defined by nature. The was no Enfamil, no daycare, nothing of the sort. The only way the system would work is for her to take care of the offspring and for him to go plow the fields, build necessary structures, tend to the animals and so forth.
This resulted in Men becoming physically stronger as the work was more physically demanding. The Women, though not weak by any stretch of the imagination, simply did not develop the same level of strength and possibly endurance. Of course that is debatable, but what isn't.
In those times, the Men decided when and where to plant the crops, and timed them not to get frosted. He had to be forward thinking. In the meantime the Woman, in taking care of her responsibilities became more focussed on the immediate needs of the children. Thus was created a rift between their respective attitudes and priorities. But they complemented one another.
The Man appreciated a good meal after working all day, theWoman appreciated him growing the food and bringing home the bacon so to speak. Not that she didn't work all day, but most of it was in the house, or very closeby. The Man could be quite a distance away planting "the south forty" so to speak.
With superior physical strength, the Man became the protector, and he sure would because those are his offsping there.
I believe this goes quite a way to explain the inate difference between the sexes, for those of us who still enjoy them. It was the natural order of things, but the operative word here is "was". Things have changed in the brave new world. When people had to survive on their own, they had little choice but to go with what worked. As time went on the male offspring would start helping their Fathers in the field and barn, whatever. The female offspring would learn from their Mother to take care of the house, cook, sew, make butter, whatever it took. This created a pattern of complimentary behavior that was extant for centuries.
Now, this has changed. Because of cities, or even towns, the lines are blurred. In the old days the Woman would defer most judgement to the Man in a conflicting situation because she saw herself as dependant upon him for certain things. In an ideal situation a Man would not abuse this authority, as it came clear that there is a responsibility involved. A good Man would realize that he is dependant upon her as well.
For centuries it was recognized that a Man thought into the future more and a Woman though of the here and now. The Yin and Yang in Chinese theology express that almost precisely. Those kids need to eat TODAY, so he better have been planting something months ago. In things like this, survival, they complemented one another. Note the Man would also like to eat TODAY :-)
The system worked in that type of environment. I think it was a good and simple life. If they did well enough to have some spare time, fun was invented. Without TV or video games, maybe not even a deck of cards, they found ways to have a bit of fun TOGETHER. Thus the concept of family invented itself.
Today's society makes that whole thing outdated. We have Enfamil, we have daycare sometimes referred to as schools. We have cars and live in cities. I walk next door without shoes to burn one with my neighbor, back then you had to load up the horse and buggy and travel miles to visit the nearest neighbor. People had solitude, time to think. I do believe it was a better life, but it just doesn't work now.
With the advent of modern society, cities and such, and things like cars, mass production, grocery stores, nature no longer has the ability to impose her influence. After a few generations of this, the distiction is blurred, and the natural result is inevitable. I don't say it is for the better or for the worse, but it is certainly true. I know a Woman who is more masculine than most Men as well as a Man who is so effeminate that I am am surprised he hasn't tried crossdressing or something.
The thing to realize so you don't judge these changes harshly is that with the way the human condition has developed, these changes were inevitable given all the random factors extant.
Further, I have developed new suppositions about the subject which I cannot yet call theories. The rise in homosexuality, homophobes say it is bad, and while I never feared them, a long time ago I thought it was wrong and I said so to one. I gave the ever cogent reason "if everyone were like you there would be no people". This resulted in a VERY enlightening discussion to say the least. We were both reasonable and stated our case, and my opinion changed. That was a while back.
In time I seem to have come to a new realization on the subject, and to put it tightly in context, I would have to admit that if half the people were "like him" there would not be such an overpopulation problem. Every homosexual I know is a productive member of society, both male and female. They don't reproduce, although sometimes I think they would be the best ones to do so. They describe the situation as something that came upon them, that they did not willingly choose it. I used to be reluctant to believe that, but things have changed.
You might think this part a bit off the wall, but recalculating everything I have learned in forty years or so I have a different viewpoint. I now believe different things, and to make clear my assertion on the subject I will explain that as succinctly as possible.
I have begun to think more in a macro sense, more than ever before. This may be hard to grasp but give it a shot. The universe it alive. The entire universe in which we exist is a huge organism. As life on this, the third rock from the sun, we are collectively a cell so to speak within this huge organism. As such there is something which could be termed a superconcious. While we do act indepentandtly in many concious matters, there are certain collective matter which we operate on as a unit.
Evolution could be a good example of that if you can move to the theories of it more advanced than those of Charles Darwin. I am not saying Darwin was wrong, I am just saying that he didn't see the big picture so to speak. The natural selection process was indeed a big factor in shaping the life forms on this planet today but Darwinian theory seems to focus on attrition, what I am saying is that there is more to it.
Explain instinct, and I don't mean in a simplistic sense. Why do some animals automatically know what kinds of things are poisonous to them ? Why are there so many common traits to species' that have survived to this day (on land at the moment). Nesting and language, though very rudimentary in some species, exists. I think these things would be quite unlikely if there were no collective connection, at least within a given species.
Let's just go for that, I admit it is my supposition, and who will ever know if it is true. I have this article everybody refuses to read, and right now if you want to find it you will have to go into the wayback machine of CM to get it, but it describes actual physiological changes in animals that were forced into overcrowded conditions. Food was ample and they were eating the same thing all the time, yet the relative sizes of their glands changed, their endocrine balance changed. There were too many of them.
Sex drive is an instinct, which is why it is so hard to control for some. Let's delve into that momentarily. Say a society is there in which from birth all females are seperated from males, all their life. Nudist, and always has been but nobody gives it a thought. That's the way it has been since day one. Now after this total isolation from the opposite sex, they meet up. Now don't think for one minute that somebody isn't going to figure it out.
I think it is resolved that we are talking about instinct here. How does that apply to homosexuals ? Here it is.
If sex drive is instinct, it is pretty unsure where exactly from where it comes. With all the strides made in human psychology, they either won't or can't explain the differences in people's inate instinct to any significant degree. It varies by race as well as national origin, which does not always parelell race. Genders are also different. Possibly gender differences could be more attributable to physiological differences. I will admit that, but this is my theory.
The conclusion is that the increase in homosexuality and other sexual practices that do not produce offspring, while shunned in the past when we were few, are a natural solution to the overcrowding situation we now have, by the entire human organism of which we are all a part.
We are judged by nature, and her tool with which to correct us is instinct. We have no feedback except in our actions and the way I see it is that we have been judged to be over-reproducing. Nature's response is clear. A certain percentage of us will not reproduce. We can have pleasure, build and live good lives, but not contribute to the biomass. Hitting that point from another angle, maybe the biomass has judged itself to be over-reproducing.
Anyway, with the stigma associated with any form of "gender displacement" for lack of a better blanket term, I have come to the realization that nobody chooses it.
What comes back to the thread (kinda) is that now we have so much of this "displacement", traditional gender based roles are noticed, but in the past they were not only accepted, but expected. We expect something different, and I guess we should.
Give a bit of thought to nature's plan. More and more people, percentage wise are engaging in sex that is definitely not to produce offspring. That is a desire, and I think it well estabished as an instinct. So in nature's plan less people reproduce. She is simply making an adjustment.
Anybody with me here ?
Sorry it's so damn long, but I think it an interesting and intricate subject. What could I have left out ?
T
|
RE: The Lives of Women and Men - 
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