quote:

Originally posted by venomX PS: i severely dislike the whole "its all the mens fault" undertones of the book you mentioned.

For the record......

We can not accurately judge what alternate worlds would be like under different circumstances, we can only guess.

However, we CAN look at the world as it is.

And if I'm not mistaken, the VAST majority of officials, both elected and not, in almost all major world cultures...................................................................................................................................................

are male.

What do you make of this?

I'm no feminist, LOL... I'm just observing the simple facts of how it is.

Seems like the world is very poisoned and fucked up right now, I think we'd all agree?

Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby For the record...... We can not accurately judge what alternate worlds would be like under different circumstances, we can only guess. However, we CAN look at the world as it is. And if I'm not mistaken, the VAST majority of officials, both elected and not, in almost all major world cultures................................................................................................................................................... are male. What do you make of this? I'm no feminist, LOL... I'm just observing the simple facts of how it is. Seems like the world is very poisoned and fucked up right now, I think we'd all agree? Cheers.

I have not said that there was not bias and sexism in the past. And the fact that the vast majority of world officials are male has to do with the lingering stereotype that males are better suited for leadership. Also my dislike still applies, women were also part of creating this society that we live in, even by their inaction they contributed to allow male dominance. If you consider past leaders and to some extent comtemporary leaders you'll notice that at some points in history, due to how societies were structured women were not suitable for ruling over countries. They lacked certain skillsets that were necessary, such as physical power, or particular knowledge, not by nature but by the socities were. Today this doesnt apply of course.

I dont see how most elected officials being male really affects my dislike of the mentality, i still consider our current unequal society to be a result of the interplay of many things and women are also included and also bear responsibility for how the world is today.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Well, whether her exact reason is the case or not, what she says is true. Men and Women are genetically different in a few key ways regarding the amino acids they produce, each of which has different effects on the reality of the organism. In a lot of species the "alpha male" of a tribe revolves around the three S's: strength, size, and sexual drive. This was probably evolutionarily present to ensure that our species met optimal potential for diversity (and thus survival, assuming that what is smart for survival would come in first place). It no longer comes in first place.

No, the "alpha male" status insured that the best available genes were assured survival, ie. the genes that insured that in a world where one had to defend oneself from wild animals and had to catch their food instead of buying it at mcdonalds, the genes that insured these abilities would prevail. And for the record women and men dont produce different "amino acids", they produce different hormones, every human has the same basic "amino acids".

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

I suppose I'll grant this subject a more serious response in this forum.

It's really a foolish question. The behavioral traits which govern human interaction so as to ultimately lead to warfare might be more prevalent among the species' males, but that is the observation of a simpleton. The myopic - and vain - search to identify the immediate precursor to the emergent phenomenon that is warfare would be, even if it were successful, only comparable to explaining a spilt drink by pointing to the angle at which the glass now rests as the cause. Not a very insightful observation, in either case.

Without those same behavioral traits, it is quite possible the human species would have never evolved to this point, or that it would have become extinct in the distant past. Alternately, if the males of the past didn't possess these characteristics, it's quite possible the females would have adapted them out of necessity.

To posit a situation in which the female human species exists as they have evolved along with the males, but with those males whose characeristics necessarily influenced the development of the characteristics of those females somehow out of the picture is pure nonsense. The phenomena are inextricable, and such a question is akin to asking how flipping a coin would be affected by removing one side, leaving us with a one-sided coin. Even if a one-sided coin could exist, I doubt our understanding of the physics of flipping a two-sided coin would provide much insight into the mechanics with which it would behave.