NoCalOwner
Posts: 241
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destinysskeins
Thank You, NoCal, for digging up some interesting facts for us all. *grins* For some obscure reason i enjoy all the evolutionary/historical discussions (even though i don't truly agree with most of them!).
I don't necessarily agree with jumping to a lot of conclusions over them, particularly when they're chosen the way I just did it: all in support of one perspective, none in support of others. The genetic record is filled with bits which don't agree with each other, as various genes have survived long after they seemed to serve any purpose. Despite all of the material which shows, I would go so far as to say proves, that our ancestors were anything but monogamous, that doesn't mean that we have been that way in the last 100,000 years. On the contrary, there is evidence that we are genetically inclined towards monogamy lately.
Example: when we started walking upright, the heat of Africa favored a Zulu sort of build -- tall, thin, with a lot of surface area for dissapating heat through sweat. The chest started changing from apelike to what we think of as human. The hips narrowed to make it easier to walk on two feet. When brain size started increasing like mad a couple of million years ago, smaller hips + babies with giant brains would obviously be a problem for mothers. As a result, proto-human babies were born with far less developed brains than those of other creatures (which are born with brains much closer to adult size), and human childhood became, relatively speaking, extremely long. This was an ideal arrangement from the perspective of passing information along from one generation to the next, doing much to bring us to the level we're at now. It was also an excellent reason for mothers to want some help and support from fathers -- most animal babies will follow their mothers within hours of birth, whereas human babies take over a year to do so. By the dawn of history, we find fathers typically assisting their mate(s) and children much more extensively than you see among apes. And lo and behold, it seemed to work out for us -- despite nearly having become extinct at one point, we have survived.
Not only do we get very mixed messages from our genetics, but our environment plays an equally important role. In fact, they are so interwoven with each other that it's never really one of them working at a time, it is always complex interaction of the two. You can rarely feel sure where one ends and the other begins. So it comes as little surprise that humans are conflicted about their sexuality, or that ideas about it change as conditions change. Even if our genetics in no way favored monogamy or patriarchy (and they may not), the fact that our genes have given us infants that are utterly helpless brings that into play as a crucial part of our environment.
Two hundred years ago childbirth outside of marriage was a catastrophic event for most women, but now, with women being accepted in the workplace, marriage seems more like a possibly helpful option than mandatory. It's not like modern women (in post-industrial countries) face such dangerous conditions that they're always afraid to walk down the street without some big guy protecting them. Things are changing really quickly, and some part of our inner workings is going to be dissatisfied by any possible answer. Some individuals, too.
My own belief is that, socially, we need to hang onto the notion of universal human equality, even if it is a gross oversimplification, and in many ways inadequate. To say that biology makes only one sex suitable rulers is, in my opinion, precisely as useful as a belief in a "master race," and for all the same reasons.
In our own houses, and especially our own bedrooms, no reasons or justifications are needed.
|
RE: Female Supremacy - 
Profile
go for it harpo I have a shit load
~smiles~
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