|
vincentML -> RE: Are Men Becoming Irrelevant? (7/7/2010 6:36:29 PM)
|
quote:
Nature implants mental, physical and survival aspects within our DNA coding, I don't believe I know anyone that argues that. These impulses govern our ability to exist, adapt and survive in an ever-changing world. Even without technology the world would be in a state of fluctuation, perhaps at a slower pace, but it would and will change. Maybe men with their infinity to solve problems by whippin’ someone’s ass, the advent of the nuclear age and the chance to impose absolute destruction have inspired a natural evolution where the more passive nature of women are now bringing life into balance before life ceases to exist.
You have a number of intersting opinions and I would be sore to have you think your remarks went unread. I will just tweak at a few. In the paragraph above you write as if Nature were some force outside of evolution acting upon our DNA coding. I hope you understand that yours is not the Darwinian concept of Evolution by natural selection and that the effects of natural selection work best on an isolated gene pool. Our species is everywhere so I am not sure if biological evolution is still in process. Perhaps another reader will give me their opinion on that issue.
The article I presented talks about the impact of post-industrial economic change on groups that lack the skills to meet the new environment. So, the issue is about cultural change. There are humans still in nature so to speak and depend upon strength and stamina to survive. This article, however, refers to the impact upon men in civilization. The inherited traits of strength and stamina are no longer an advantage to them. There will always be jobs that utilize those traits but they will be on the lower end of the pay scale, and that's the rub.
quote:
I don't believe that intellectually one gender of our species has the advantage over the other, on the whole. No one is always the smartest, the strongest or the best at something unless nature sees fit to design us as such. But generally there are no absolutes in life. Though it is my opinion that nature tends to code males as group leaders, concurrently it tends to code females with the capacity to be happy in a supporting role. Is that a natural order, no it's a natural inclination. Ever hear the sayings "too many Cooks spoil the broth", "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians", I think nature has heard both.
What you say may have been true during the hunter/gatherer stages of our evolution but what you miss here is the effects of the long period of socialization that began with agriculture. Women may have been genetically predisposed to be "happy in a supporting role" but it is just as likely that the role was imposed upon them and reinforced by thousands of years of socialization. Really, I don't know of anythng to support the notion that women are natural born followers except that strength and stamina were an awesome advantage in warrior cultures.
|
|
|
|
