[Discussion] Baby experiment
- Thread starter FuChomei
- Start date
NeverEnding
Banned
King Of Crows
Active member
I just want sushi
hixa kuogame
Active member
Awards
Strawberry
Active member
Awards
Sir Blades
Active member
It is implanted into our young heads that men are supposed to be strong and be the leader and that women are supposed to be beautiful and caring. For instance "Smart like daddy, Pretty like mommy"
Not to mention toy ads.
AlexCornell
Member
Just the thought of having a child or someone child that looks up to you as a dad, is an honor, friend.
This theory sounds convincing...
Until you consider that this is largely how -all- human cultures behave. Even tribes in various corners of the world that were only discovered by the modern world during World War II.
The reason is quite simple. Women are the most valuable thing to our species. Above food and water.
One woman can produce one child roughly once a year - and that's assuming she has the resources to support that kind of schedule. Few women, "back in the day" survived to see their grandchildren (we're talking back when we were still migrating around and the harsh environmental selection and low population numbers had very lasting effects on our genetic structure). Just to keep the population -alive- the average woman had to have two children survive.
As a guy - I can hunt, forage, and (once we figured it out) farm for one woman... or five women, if the situation requires. They shouldn't be running through the woods while pregnant if at all possible. If a man dies ... meh - the rest of us just have to pick up the pace and some guy gets the privilege to have kids by two women (note - whichever guy and girl are accepting of this are going to foster more children and that have a higher likelihood of seeing those genes survive).
Which is the truth about survival. Men are expendable (why we were the soldiers, the hunters, the ones who take the higher attrition roles). Women are not. Only very recently has our collective size and technological capability made it even thinkable of putting women in the higher risk/attrition roles. Modern hygeine reduces the risks of infections while medicines allow treatment to be much more effective when they do arise. A gash from a hunting accident no longer comes with a 40% mortality rate (while this wouldn't have been the case in tribal societies - the consolidation of the human species into villages and eventually urban environments required the development of organized hygeine that... well... took us a while).
Which is exactly why you see it all over the world, in every nook and cranny you can find us.
The selective factors were so ridiculously strong in our early development that all of Europe traces its lineage back to six distinct females in history. Even then - those trace their lineage back to one female that left Africa.
It's not that these were the -only- women on the planet at the time, or that they were the only ones in the region. They are the only ones who had daughters that collectively survived to produce us. Of the thousands in the region with them... they were it. One mother from africa spawned the Europeans, Russians, Asians, Americans, and Pacific Islanders.
That's why women are treated as these frail things. The men who saw children that survived, recognized that women were kinda-sorta important to the odds of leaving a legacy behind.
Interestingly - the women who -did- survive were anything but frail. Men merely developed the perception because, if they didn't, they were likely to be left with a sausage fest when too many of their women died trying to be pregnant warriors. That said... the women most likely to lead a higher quality life and have more children who survived would be those who knew how to use that perception to their advantage.
Of course - different cultures have taken those instincts and placed different spins on them. In some cultures - women hold the political hereditary power. In others, men hold the hereditary power... in some to the degree that women are (interestingly enough) treated more like property than individual beings.
Structurally - human society resembles that of birds. Many species of birds form political 'official' pairings - but will mate outside of those pairings (with each 'side' developing strategies and even genetic adaptations to allow them to better sneak around or detect infidelity). Or, when the circumstances favor - one male will tend many females... or one female will select from many competing males (the others will simply never foster children if they can't get a female to accept).
It's quite interesting, really.
That's not to say that "because we evolved this way" means "we should keep doing it this way" - it simply means that in order to achieve your ideals, you must have a very solid understanding of why what you see as ideal is not what currently prevails.
The world is always working exactly as it should be. Physics doesn't 'break down' and need us to come in and fix it. Before we can go about 'setting things straight' in our own concept of ideals... we should first seek understanding as to why the existing circumstances are 'what is supposed to be.'
This was very well written though I busted out laughing reading about Pregnant Warriors. Women we're treated more as a commodity than people throughout history. FeministFrequency has some interesting views (some ridiculous, some agreeable) I'd recommend watching her videos on advertisements (BUT NOT THE MARIO ONE)
Generally speaking...
[wow... just got done tilling up my garden spot and my hands/fingers are not working right to type...]
My posts are always supposed to have a vein of humor in them. Though I tend to embrace extreme presentations and being serious to the point of being goofy... my room mates of a few years, now, still have trouble figuring me out.
I think that interpretation is only surface deep, for the most part.
Men, in many cultures, were third-class citizens unless they were nobility. Take medieval Europe, for example. Men were farmers, blacksmiths and footsoldiers if the were relatively lucky. Most ended up consumed in some battle or another. The few tradesmen took wives, and they often hoped that they would have a daughter(s) that would draw the eye of some noble and become one of the servants of their estate (also known as concubine). A son or two might have inherited the business, but most would end up conscripted into some army or another or work the hard labor in mines where they would ultimately be expended.
India was well known for the harems tended by nobles, with many of the young men being castrated (so there would be no tom-foolery) before serving the palace as enochs.
Though it's probably in bad taste... I find humor in the irony that the concept of witchcraft largely centers around a woman's ability to seduce men - particularly outside the bonds of marriage.
Which is an indicator as to the forces that drive our social behavior. Women, naturally, will seek a man who is attractive but also seek a good provider/husband (kind of have to when the last couple months of pregnancy put some rather severe limitations on practical activity). She is kind of bound to the life of a child she has.
Unlike a man, who isn't. He's going to be attracted to what looks good, really. Now, he will want at least one girl to foster a legitimate heir with (be they male or female)... but he can go outside of the bond. Bonus points if some other guy thinks its his kid and takes care of it (then it's your genes, his parenting/status conveyed to the child... sucks to be him).
Now... why would a woman go outside of her bond and risk compromising the provider she has? Because, chances are, he may be a really, really good 'husband'... but just not get the motor running and be the prime example of human physical genetics (at least, according to her senses). So, if she feels she can get away with it and feels the difference between her official mate and this guy is worth it - she'll be inclined to take it, particularly around the time she ovulates (where research shows women are far more likely to committ an act of infidelity).
Of course, women will seek to dominate the time of their partnered male. After all... if some other woman exists in his life, and he decides she's too troublesome - he's likely to simply swap who he puts his efforts behind and side-line her in favor of some other woman.
This started long ago, and is another prime example of how the Red Queen influences things. Human females are one of the only mammals that 'stealth-ovulate.' There's two likely reasons for this. First... can you imagine the insanity if guys had a clear indicator of when a girl was 'in the mood?' I don't mean a subtle blush... I mean like it is in the animal kingdom where baboons' rumps turn bright red, or a number of mammals emit powerful pheromones that dogs will track down from a hundred miles away to find. Us guys would downright kill each other and the girl would probably get totalled in the collateral insanity.
But there's a more powerful, less obvious reason. If you're married to a girl (or whatever the social custom of partnering is), and you want to have kids with her... but she doesn't have prominent "I'm ready!" written all over her... you kind of have to make her a regular part of your nights. In other words... your best chances of having a kid with your official partner is to stick with her and not run around all over the place (or, if you do run around - you have to do it more frequently and she's more likely to detect it).
It's kind of funny, really.
And if you think about it... this is all ingrained deeply into our minds. The popularity of soap-operas that dramatize these little power-plays within our mating habits should be a huge clue that it's almost hard-wired into our genetic code.
There are some researchers who have postulated that many of our emotions come specifically from this competition between men, women; fidelity and infidelity. Even our intelligence is suspected to have, at some point, been driven by this process (after all, the more intelligent you are, the more sophisticated your manipulation and detection of subtrifuge). The technological and sociological advantages didn't appear for a long while after this process had begun.
I had trust issues after my previous relationship ended in catastrophe.
Then I got into some of the research into human genetics and evolutionary models, and am not sure I will ever be able to develop enough trust with anyone. That's not to say that I believe every girl out there is just looking for an excuse to cheat... but only half of the children born into a marital relationship (or the local equivalent) are actually fathered by the 'husband.'
That, and I've heard of and seen quite a few horrible "Dear John" stories, being in the military.
I'll probably just make genetically modified clones of myself, or something. At the risk of being accused of narcissism, of course (but in reality, I'm just a heartbroken soul unable to trust another... until my super-soldier children-clones take over the world!!)