jason_els
<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 10,228
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 162
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Warwick, NY, USA
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
It's more basic. It's nature. Females (seahorses excepted) are designed to be baby carriers and nurterers. Men, and males in the general animal kingdom, are the winners. Men have to win a woman, win food, win status in a tribe, win in battle. We're designed for it.
The reason this is so is because women are, in nature, more precious. In the hierarchy of the sexes, males come in second. We're expendable because it takes far less effort, in time and resources, for males to reproduce than females. Females are needed to bear, nurse, and raise young. Human young are nearly unique in that they are born helpless (marsupials excepted to a slight degree). It takes over a decade for a human child to become reasonably self-sufficient . That's a phenomenal amount of time particularly if you consider what life was like when humans were hunter gatherers and we were still regularly on the menu for quite a few other animals. The succesful woman was one who had a male fight and get food for her. He protected her against other humans and animals. The bigger, stronger, smarter, more imposing man she could find, the better. He attracted her by being big, muscled, a respectable member of the tribe, preferably of high status, a tight buttom and a large penis (to improve chances of insemination). She is also interested in how solicitous he was of her. Doing so meant he wouldn't just impregnate her and leave. She wanted some indication that he would stick around her and provide for her.
She attracted he by appearing healthy, with large breasts for feeding his potential offspring, wide hips for childbearing, unique features that give her status in the tribe (like being blonde or red-headed), and being of good nature so that she would get cooperation of the other women in the tribe, thus improving the social and survival chances of his offspring.
He displayed his prowess by bringing her items that required skill and strength to get; perhaps a lion tooth or a hunk of mastodon, or a bear pelt. After mating she would become progressively less nimble and, at the time of birth, become heavily occupied with child nursing and bearing for the next few years. She would have had other women to help her, but the traditional skills of the women didn't take her far from home. Spinning, herb gathering, fire tending, weaving, teaching language and customs to children, medicine, were all feminine arts. These were things essential to the tribe and to successful procreation.
Ten men could attempt to impregnate one woman but only one will succeed and then it would take nearly a year before she could procreate again.
One man could impregnate 10 women in just a few days and they would have ten children.
It's a matter of evolutionary imperative.
So when you say that woman is the man-using animal, you're right. However it seems to be a masculine definition of what a tool is. Women also use tools by being generally better at language, creating (these days buying) furniture and other things to make a home comfortable and pleasant as women are more sensitive to texture and color. Men, being more spatial generally excel at building and architecture, women better at making the structure a home. Women are also more sensitive to scent and taste; essential in knowing what foods are still fresh enough to eat. Women are more sensitive to temperature, essential for keeping babies warm, but also important in cooking and the detection of fevers. Women also read faces better, are more sensitive to the feelings of others, and express their emotions more readily. These tools are essential in keeping the tribe cohesive, cooperative, and sharing knowledge. Men bond readily in trial (hunting, battle, sport), women bond easily by talking frankly, sharing, and showing mutual concern.
We really do complement each other very well because it is the differences between the sexes that create the whole of humanity into the evolutionary success that it is.
NOTES: There are exceptions to every one of these general gender rules from culture to culture but, on the whole, this is accurate.
This in no way is meant to minimize the roles of women or men in any way. If I've explained properly, it will show that men are, by default, designed to serve the needs of women.
*Ties on a apron, checks the oven to see if dinner is done, then walks to the bathroom to apply lipstick and freshen up before her beloved sloped brow Cro-Magnun home from work.*![]()
Who cares as long as you drag me by my hair to the bedroom and rut me to death after dinner? :biggrin1:
Who cares as long as you drag me by my hair to the bedroom and rut me to death after dinner? :biggrin1:
Sloping though be my brow, I'd spare your life for breakfast.
mercurialbliss said:Ties on a apron, checks the oven to see if dinner is done, then walks to the bathroom to apply lipstick and freshen up before her beloved sloped brow Cro-Magnun home from work
mercurialbliss said:BTW, dark hair is a dominant gene, blonde and red hair are recessive genes. They would more likely be ostracized from the tribe for their looks, not included as something special.
According to the study, the appearance of blond hair and blue eyes in some northern European women made them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males. The study argues that blond hair was produced higher in the Cro-Magnon descended population of the European region because of food shortages 10,000-11,000 years ago. Almost the only sustenance in northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses and finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men. This hypothesis argues that women with blond hair posed an alternative that helped them mate and thus increased the number of blonds [emphasis mine].
OK. First red flag. You talk about nature in this post and talk about "traditonal roles" in the next post. What is tradition? "The passing of the elements of a culture from generation to generation" (Answers.com) You've contradicted yourself by saying that the roles are innate, when in fact, tradition must be nutured by a community, not the chromosomes residing within us. Consider the different cultures all over the world, past and present. They're all different and women have ruled a few here and there. Read your history books.It's more basic. It's nature.
That's all fine and dandy but have you looked around lately? Women don't need men to hunt and gather their food supply and protect them anymore. We have jobs, make money, feed ourselves, and even become single parents if we wish. And we're not that "precious" since the world population boasts of more women than men now. The world is overpopulated as it is so there's no need for us to grunt, scratch your furry backs, and worry about keeping the human race from dying a slow death anytime soon.The succesful woman was one who had a male fight and get food for her. He protected her against other humans and animals. The bigger, stronger, smarter, more imposing man she could find, the better. He attracted her by being big, muscled, a respectable member of the tribe, preferably of high status, a tight buttom and a large penis (to improve chances of insemination). She is also interested in how solicitous he was of her. Doing so meant he wouldn't just impregnate her and leave. She wanted some indication that he would stick around her and provide for her.
See above.It's a matter of evolutionary imperative.
You are perpetuating every idiotic stereotype about men and women and are doing both a great disservice by assigning roles to them that you've created. FWIW, I scored off the charts at spatial awareness when my IQ was tested. I'm not only an interior designer but have created contruction plans for residential homes, restaurants, and businesses. I'm not only good at making the structure a home, i'm good at creating the structure. How do you figure that?So when you say that woman is the man-using animal, you're right. However it seems to be a masculine definition of what a tool is. Women also use tools by being generally better at language, creating (these days buying) furniture and other things to make a home comfortable and pleasant as women are more sensitive to texture and color. Men, being more spatial generally excel at building and architecture, women better at making the structure a home. Women are also more sensitive to scent and taste; essential in knowing what foods are still fresh enough to eat. Women are more sensitive to temperature, essential for keeping babies warm, but also important in cooking and the detection of fevers. Women also read faces better, are more sensitive to the feelings of others, and express their emotions more readily. These tools are essential in keeping the tribe cohesive, cooperative, and sharing knowledge. Men bond readily in trial (hunting, battle, sport), women bond easily by talking frankly, sharing, and showing mutual concern.
Uh..no but thanks for playing.NOTES: There are exceptions to every one of these general gender rules from culture to culture but, on the whole, this is accurate.
It minimizes us because we don't need anyone to assign roles to us and there is no need for a male default any longer, as i've already explained.This in no way is meant to minimize the roles of women or men in any way. If I've explained properly, it will show that men are, by default, designed to serve the needs of women.
What's wrong? Can't handle a little humour?Oh now that isn't fair! :crying:
You should have mentioned this in your previous post. The theory established by the Canadian anthropoligist was interesting but it's only a theory. The important thing to remember is that times have changed and women can do whatever they please without worrying about provisions and housing. And there are now more of us than men...i'm beginning to wonder if that's a problem for men and in the back of their minds they worry that they're no longer of much use to us except for sex and children.I do not scorn or ridicule or think debased any woman who retains traditional roles any more than I scorn, ridicule, or debase any man who takes them on. Alternatively, a man who wishes to be a home maker and a woman who wishes to work outside of the home are, in my view, just as acceptable. I support the right of any one of any gender to engage in whatever occupation or passtime that person may wish including women being allowed in military combat. Best person for the job providing that person is appropriate and competent for it.
Had to just pull you up on that for a sec. As a professional falconer for several years, I spent a lot of time in the woods, random fields and the like. I am forever snapping off twigs, throwing rocks, fishing and hunting of various forms (I always eat what I catch, I don't agree with hunting for pure sport) Maybe I'm an exception, but I thought it was worth noting that there are women out there who do these things too.
That's all fine and dandy but have you looked around lately?
You've contradicted yourself by saying that the roles are innate, when in fact, tradition must be nutured by a community, not the chromosomes residing within us.
Consider the different cultures all over the world, past and present. They're all different and women have ruled a few here and there. Read your history books.
It minimizes us because we don't need anyone to assign roles to us and there is no need for a male default any longer, as i've already explained.
The theory established by the Canadian anthropoligist was interesting but it's only a theory.
The important thing to remember is that times have changed and women can do whatever they please without worrying about provisions and housing.
How the hell did I miss this post? I have found my Helen. !! Kotchanski, you love sex AND raptors!!!???
Thanks. It's very useful and subliminally powerful though I don't know why...:tongue:
What change? There is NO change as demonstrated above.FYI,
I have NO problem with women who change gender roles...