- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
Yes, you're absolutely correct.
Patriarchy isn't simply a model of male power. It is also a model of class structural power. Men who aren't at the top are considered expendable, and are used for the benefit of men in a higher class.
However, consider something else. Just because women, in this model, are considered to be a valuable resource DOESN'T mean that they aren't also considered a lower class.
Let's take American slavery. I am not comparing the two apples-for-apples. I'm simply using it to demonstrate the concept, since it's the clearest form of it that comes to mind.
Having slaves was an investment. They made it possible to generate more profit expending less money. It was in the slave owner's interest to keep his slaves in good enough shape to work.
In this model, it is actually the slave owner who is expendable. Any white man could have owned them. It wouldn't matter. All that mattered was that the plantation made money, through valuable slaves.
But that doesn't mean that the slave owner wasn't in a position of power.
The very mindset of considering a human being to be merely a "resource" is degrading their humanity.
And yes, considering men to be more expendable is as well. But men had more choices about how to expend themselves. Women had to be confined to a set of pre-destined uses in which they were considered valuable.
Patriarchy isn't a great deal for the majority of men, as you have aptly pointed out. But it certainly doesn't put women in a position of power. In a patriarchal model, women are only protected for as long as they continue to adhere to their "purpose," as decided by men.
And since the model you've described does not in any way correspond to reality, we can safely say it's just a model.
Ok, Graff. Patriarchy never existed, women could always vote, and evidently, you are feeling unloved lately. Feel better? :lol:
Well what about genetic diversity? Sure one guy can get 10 women pregnant in pretty much the same amount of time 10 guys could, but that doesn't lead to offspring as diverse as 10 men would have been able to provide.
If you need to believe as much, then enjoy yourself. You're not harming anyone.
As to procreation, biotechnology stands on the cusp of making pregnancy obsolete.
The same way we needed someone's ear to glue to that unfortunate mouse?Always gonna need a man and a woman to get that DNA from.
Why do you think women were subjugated in most primitive cultures and in many current religious cultures? Men have always known that women are the most powerful and worked very hard to "correct" it. There are some who believe the Catholic church was actuallly founded by Mary and "hijacked" by men after her death. That's why women are forbidden from being priests to this day.
Women were "subjugated" because they ceded power to men in pre-history. Women had to focus on childbearing, because they were the ones who gave birth. Because men were not encumbered with a pregnancy nine months out of the year, it made sense for men to be the hunter/gatherers and leaders while women focused on maternity. Women obviously realized this was the logical way to go about things and went along with it.
I laugh when these feminists complain about patriarchy, when in fact women were just as much responsible for the existence of it as men were. I suppose you could say mother nature had a role in its creation, too. This idea of men realizing womens' latent power and wanting to oppress them because of it is total nonsense and is rhetoric straight out of a late 1960's NOW meeting.
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
Goshin said:One sometimes wonders if this will turn out to be something of a mistake on our part, to future archeologists.
Women were never, by nature, in a submissive position to men. It is actually our unnatural modes of living that made this possible.
Gender relations place females in a submissive position to males in virtually every species of overtly social great ape we are aware of.
The bonobo (/bəˈnoʊboʊ/ or /ˈbɒnəboʊ/), Pan paniscus, formerly called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee,[3] is a great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan; the other is Pan troglodytes, or the common chimpanzee. Although the name "chimpanzee" is sometimes used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the common chimpanzee, while Pan paniscus is usually referred to as the bonobo.
Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal and a male's rank in the social hierarchy is often determined by his mother's rank.
Apes also throw their feces at others. Maybe men should start doing the same
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
Bonobos are an exception to this rule and only remarkable as such.
Always gonna need a man and a woman to get that DNA from.
Two females can't fertilize a human egg right
Q: I just read the fascinating USA Today story about the monkey embryo created by parthenogenetic reproduction (where an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual: common among insects). Is it possible to take the chromosomes from one female egg and inject them into another female egg so they attach and actually form a fertilized egg? --Stan C., Naples, Florida
A: It probably is not possible with humans but we have done it with mice. We have moved the entire cell nucleus from one mouse egg to another mouse egg and joined them to form an embryo. The resulting embryo had no chromosomes from a father but it was a fertilized egg.
It kind of works in the mouse, except chromosomes have different properties depending on whether they come from the male (sperm) or female (egg/oocyte), says Michael Tucker of Georgia Reproductive Specialists.
That's the rub. Reproduction in mice and men evolved using both male and female genes in conjunction, complementing each other. When male chromosomes are missing, things don't always work well and sometimes catastrophically. The fetus dies.
Let's wander into a cell and see where and why things go wrong. A cell's nucleus contains a tangled structure called the chromatin. When the cell divides, the chromatin condenses into 23 (for humans) distinct entities called chromosomes. The microscopic chromosomes occur in matched pairs (one from each parent) and each chromosome contains many genes that also occur in matched pairs. Offspring inherit one-half of their genes from each parent and then mix the two sets of genes together to form an unique individual.
Before the fertilized egg divides, it duplicates each chromosome. A tiny DNA filament connects each duplicate chromosome pair in the middle. See figure.
When the cell divides, the centrisome (a part of the sperm outside the nucleus) organizes the division so it happens right. The centrisome splits into two poles that move to opposite ends of the cell. It also establishes a long rod at each pole. The chromosomes align along each rod and point to the opposite pole: like spread-apart fingers of two hands, barely touching at the fingertips. The cell pulls apart each chromosome duplicate pair, like separating hands. See figure. The cell divides along a line about half-way between the two poles and each new cell has a full, proper system of chromosomes.
Without this organizing system from the male, the chromosomes will scatter throughout the cell. Consequently, when the cell divides, the resulting daughter cells will not have a complete and proper chromosome set. Subsequent cell divisions will compound the mess and not form a viable embryo.
That's why fertilization that results in a fertilized egg containing only-female chromosomes will probably not work for humans.
Two females can't fertilize a human egg right
So I heard about a book, and a friend described the essential point. It is actually an interesting concept, and it is important when considering discussions about "sexism" and what actually falls under that category.
A premise I am putting forward (and keep in mind I am generalizing the point): men are expendable. Women are invaluable. Less men are needed, biologically speaking, to sustain the species. And what is an almost universal role that men must play? Protector. Soldier. Guardian. Roles of "power" or "leadership," but also roles of extensibility, risk, and essential danger. Men are expected to assume this role?
Now. I am not saying this is always true, but it is true enough to give thought isn't it?
And humans are the exceptional ape.
Actually, in most of prehistory, women never got pregnant more than 3 or 4 times in their entire lives. They spent most of their life... not pregnant. And not nursing an infant. And with an entire tribe of people who traded off childrearing communally. And when they did have an infant, they often just strapped them on and continued with their normal activities. Their roles in their tribes often led them quite far away from home.
The most likely cause of patriarchy is the body fat changes that occurred due to agriculture, resulting in unnaturally high fertility, and leaving women vulnerable to subjugation. Women never "agreed" to any such arrangement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?