|
Alecta -> RE: Why Aren't Women More Like Men In This Respect? (9/7/2016 2:28:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KitsapReign
Let's talk biology. I'm sure you've all heard in school that the one thing that drives all species is sex.
Actually, true.
quote:
The drive to procreate. Now, in our species, as someone pointed out in this very thread, men hunt and women nest. What do women need to make a nest? Material. (I am a material girl). What do men do with the food they catch besides eat it? They give it to the women and children. Why do men do such an altruistic thing as share their food they survive on with the women and children? So the species can procreate.
Why do the women nest? to provide a safe place to raise the children. So the species can procreate.
This immediately creates an exchange system where the male gets sex for bringing home food. The better hunter, the better the chance to survive. Fuck the best hunter and get fed. The nest is safer with the best hunters. If a male doesn't hunt, he's not going to get sex. All males therefore hunt.
Note that this situation doesn't exist this way in all species. Lions, for example. That is because male humans are better equipped to hunt, human children take a long time to be able to leave the nest and a host of other factors. Because of this naturally occurring social reality, females of the human race become hardwired to think like whores. It's no coincidence that the man buys the woman that big diamond ring proclaiming his love. She is a material girl after all and he is proclaiming to her that he is the great hunter.
The rest of this, complete uneducated drivel.
The proverbial man is not a lone hunter who happens to catch the eye of the lone woman who then throws in with him because he's a great provider. It is actually much more mutual and on a larger scale than that. Human beings, exceptions aside, are instinctually pack animals. We congregate in groups, and as a result of this instinct, we have developed to become a co-operative society - which isn't to say everyone is altruistic and wants to help one another, all it means is that we have developed lifestyles that are requires our co-operation with other people in order to get everything we need.
The hunter bring the food back to the tribe, which is women, children, other men, and other hunters, gatherers, producers, artisans etc., and they all eat. Interestingly, the majority of man's diet back then was not the product of hunting, but of gathering, which was produced primarily by women, being a task that can be performed around the challenges and restrictions presented by their children. It was not the nesters who flocked around the strong hunter, it was the other way around - the hunters offered themselves to the nesters, to become part of the tribe for the myriad advantages - yes, sex, but more importantly, varied diet, social interaction, the benefits of various skills cultivated in the tribe (if Tommy doesn't have to worry about hunting enough food everyday to survive, Tommy can spend his time learning medicine), including creating higher yields and efficiency in hunting (being able to preserve the uneaten parts of that deer you shot today means you can still have deer next week when you don't catch anything).
Women did not flock to the greatest hunters, they went to the men whose skill was the greatest contribution to the tribe, and each tribe at different times, have different priorities. Say the tribe's focus is expanding population. The most popular men would be those with a track record of producing multiple births. Or the tribe wants to up it's hunting power, so the women flock to the strongest, in order to produce strong children, who can then be trained to become strong and skilled hunters. If the tribe worships knowledge, it would be the cleverest or most learned men. And as a coincidental consequence of this focus, that wise man, strong man, fertile man, because society values him for his wisdom, strength or virility, therefore becomes "rich".
But I can see where one might think that it was the "rich" part that attracted the women; and to be fair, we are in an age where the societal focus had been on the "rich man" as opposed to the virile, wise or strong.
The reason this model no longer holds true is that our society has changed. We are so many in a tribe and the tribe's needs are so vast and many that we are no longer restricted by the urgent tribal needs to take on specific roles, hone certain skills, or produce young that hold specific genetic attributes with the same urgency and pressures as in the hunter-gatherer days.
The question of whether male humans are better equipped to hunt is very much arguable. It does, in a large part, depend on what you are hunting, and yes, female hunters have a striking disadvantage in general by way of menstruation (smelling of blood), there is no credible means of generalising male humans as better equipped to hunt -- they are more commonly relegated to the role of hunting because traditionally society had always valued a woman's ability to procreate over any other of her abilities (tell me that's not true the next time you mom pesters you about giving her a grandson more than she does about your next career promotion heh).
Human children do not naturally take a long time to leave the nest; this is a societal construct we have built for ourselves. The necessity and consequences of this is an entirely different subject, but the crux of this point is, this is not a natural reality. None of the factors that contributed to women being educated to become whores are "naturally occurring".
While I agree with the original these that women have been taught to become whores, the argument fails abysmally at attributing it to any natural phenomenon, or indeed at justifying the claim that it is "hardwired" (the one supposed argument of 10,000 to 1, false figures, by the way, being a matter of supply and demand rather than inclination). Not to mention the failure to properly distinguish between the mindset of a whore and common survival instinct in the arguments.
And then there is the diamond... ah, the diamond. Whose rise to popularity was the result of systematic propaganda and brainwashing by jewellers! Buy your true love a diamond: it'll show everyone around you that you're capable of throwing money away at an otherwise worthless rock (other gems have properties and origins that made it valuable to society at some point, only diamond does not). Put a diamond ring on her finger as a display of your mastery so that other men know what kind of competition they are up against! --- and yes, I do not dispute that there are women who would do anything for diamonds, but only because they are victims of that old, persistant propaganda that jewellers are still propagating today, and nothing to do with your bloated "big hunter" fantasy.
quote:
Revelations states that Babylon is a whore dressed in red. The same book says Money is the root of all evil. But what is money? An abstraction for our labor. And what was labor for 99% of human existence? Hunting for food to give to girl so you can fuck her. Money, success, wealth, power, all abstractions for the ability to say to the female, "Fuck me, you'll more successfully procreate. Your children will have the best survival chances."
So it's no coincidence that the people who wrote the bible saw the correlation between money being the root of all evil and that the drive to acquire money being rooted in the drive to get pussy. Babylon truly would seem to be a whore dressed in red.
I'm an atheist by the way.
Being atheist is no excuse for poor scholarship. The bible states that "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." Which is a statement regarding bling greed, and not quite the sentiment as intended. As well, we must consider context. The Whore in this place is an adulteress, the allegory for a disloyal, false ally; not quite the modern connotation of a woman who beds or selects her men according to his coinpurse.
quote:
Male prostitutes service men.
Uhm... untrue. Actually, come to think of it, I meet a lot of whores exactly as have been described, except they have penises. How does that figure?
|
|
|
|
