Post by Eric SwansonPost by Janina EdisonThe Great Mother Goddess, Mother Earth , Gaia taught her daughters, us
womyn , to respect Earth.
But the useless, pathetic men on this planet can only burn, destroy
and kill.
The only way to save the Earth is to reduce the male population and
let womyn rule the world.Only womyn can rule their own planet.
Men are useless and can only destroy.
Womyn are the last hope of Earth or humans will vanish forever.
The consumer (she) is a large part of the problem.
Don't believe me? A woman will have nothing to do with a man that is
unemployed, because she wants the money....
Evolutionary selection processes would tend to select mothers who look
more to security for their offspring, I'd imagine. At least early in
a baby's life, it depends very largely on the mother and the mother's
DNA won't propagate nearly as well if she isn't somehow a little more
concerned about keeping that child alive long enough.
So, from 1st principles and without much else to go on, I'd imagine
that women would find it more productive in passing on their DNA to:
(1) select mothers who find multiple partners (within limits) in order
to "diversify" the portfolio of their DNA (overly faithful behavior
would be a risk), and
(2) to select mothers who seek out a more stable "father" mate (who
might be too stupid to realize she's also being unfaithful and
diversifying her portfolio), and
(3) to select mothers who develop a way of hiding their pregnancy
until it is too late for this "stable father" to realize that he isn't
necessarily the father (male mammal behavior includes killing
offspring that isn't their own.)
The facts are that human pregnancy isn't announced right away (it is
more secretive than in many mammals), women do tend to seek
"stability" (read as "security" or "money," as needed), and aren't
necessarily faithful in their behavior.
But similar things apply to males, but with some "sharp edges" of
difference. I'd imagine males would bifurcate into two different
groups, depending on selection pressures. One group would select for
similar diversification (unfaithfulness), where that were more
beneficial. But another group would actually select for monogamy, in
those cases where they are the "stable father" and it actually
improves their DNA odds to remain faithful.
I would predict that this bifurcation is observable as a deep
"bonding" by some, but not others. Perhaps, for example, as a higher
incidence of long-married men dying within a year after their wives
die or perhaps by observing that "jilted" men are somewhat more likely
on the whole to show greater extremes of perseveration behavior
towards their mate, afterwards. But I'm no anthropologist and haven't
read on the subject. I wonder what that field says on this subject.
Post by Eric SwansonIf women weren't so high minded and didn't ask so much of their men, then
men would just layback and enjoy life (ie, sex, drugs and rock-and-roll).
hehe. I think many women would enjoy that, too. Of course, once kids
arrive on the scene...
Post by Eric SwansonWomen long ago decided that men were little more then children, and manipulate
us to get whatever the ladies want. Either way, it's a power trip.
Well, there is that, of course.
My wife is my first and only and I've known her since we were young
children. She used to babysit me, in fact. We are now a pair for
going on 30 years. Natural selection doesn't necessarily make long
term relationships easy (each goes through a lot of change over time),
and folks must learn how to accept and oddly appreciate from a
distance, if not always exactly embrace, the differences (as well as
the similarities, I suppose.)
I kind of look at men and women as really being two closely related,
but distinctly separate species, which actually are highly competitive
with each other (similar resources required for DNA propagation) but
also highly dependent, as well (for obvious reasons.)
Jon