"Male Dominated" Society?

cat your right about linnaeus, but i'm applying his detailed observation style & methods to the behaviors of our extict homonid ancestors. the question has come up, are homo sapiens "superior" to homo erectus? and why exactly? it all fits in to the puzzle and the debate about "superiority".

this post was entirely cap free!!!
 
It is difficult to say which creature is superior to another, within evolutionary theory you can only say (in hindsight) which creature is more apt to its environment. Both creatures and environments change under each others influence, especially when talking about humans. So I think that talking about superiority or even "superiority" in this respect is a category mistake. The most you can claim is that, given a certain constant environment, the species that survives longer, or thrives and grows is superior to that which decays and dwindles, but this is not an absolute, context-free kind of superiority, but only limited to that specifc environment. It is meningless to claim that cockroaches are superior to humans because they could survive a worldwide nuclear fallout, but nevertheless they are more apt to survive in those conditions. Superiority, IMHO, is not proper of the species, but of the individual and can only be judged by the standards one sets for himslef, by the ideals he chooses for his life, by the quality of his actions and words. Superiority, has nothing to do then with survival, hence is unrelated to evolutionism and species as such. A noble death can determine the (moral) superiority of an individual, or the culture that spawned him/her, but says nothing about the species. As you may note, the distinction male/female play no role at all in this. Biologically speaking male and female in a bisexual species must cultivate a sort of symbiosis for the species to survive, hence they are both equally necessary for the continuation of the species and of the same value.

Funny that nobody yet addressed the monogamy/polygamy issue ...
 
Just a friendly reminder to everyone here, personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Disagree all you want, just keep it polite and courteous.

Thanks, MD
 
Cat made some good points. So what do you think about the monogamy/polygamy issue? I think it's NOT biological at all that women would be monogamic and men polygamic - just cultural. If women are considered cheap if they have more than 1 man, and men are only 'more masculine' if they have more women - no wonder why women have the surface or impression of being more monogamic - and men trying (to hit a woman) every possible time. Plus - the only truly polygamic societies I can think about are the harems. It's NOT biological difference that arabic women can live together and share the same man, but the western can't.
 
Well, it is illegal to marry before the law more than one woman, but if you really want to and everybody agrees you can live with as much people of any sex you like. Just that they do not have all the rights that a husband or wife would have.

Concerning monogamy/polygamy, it is both a cultural and a biological issue. Due to our genes, 50% of births is male, 50% female (roughly). Two interpretations are possible: we are a monogamous species (for every member of the one sex there is a member of the other sex), or not. If we were polygamous, this would entail heavy competion to possess the males/females and would lead to strenghtening the species from a biological point of view: only the strongest/best mate and produce offspring. Culturally, however, this is unnacceptable, since this kind of poligamy would create large groups of singles, who would lead effectively a life out of society, in a much more radical way than the kind of singles we know now. These would be prevalently singles of one sex, of course, and this would create a lot of social problems (depression, violence, social emargination). Hence polygamy is not desirable (either male or female polygamy).

Regarding the hunting/strong males/superiority point: take e.g. lions. The leader of the pack is the male, but the females are the ones that hunt, and are arguably stronger and more independent than the males.
 
I find it bizarre that someone can insult the entire female population of the planet and not have his comments moderated.

If he had said that blacks/gays/asians were genetically inferior, would he have been moderated then?

Just because an insult is general rather than specific doesn't make it OK.
 
For all intents and purposes, throughout nature, dominance equals superiority, so you can't erase that word from the discussion, as much as you'd like to. No offense has to be taken from the use of it. You have to look at the situation as if you were a dog breeder, observing and reporting on your specimens.

Yes female lions do the hunting but I wouldn't go as far to say they're stronger. From what I've seen on TV a male lion keeps his harem in check with his strength and teeth.
 
So according to your way of thinking, whites are the superior race as no one can argue that world society isn't dominated by the white european / western culture.

Interesting.

"You have to look at the situation as if you were a dog breeder, observing and reporting on your specimens"

A certain European leader once had that attitude. He thought whites were superior as well...

You don't seem to understand the concept that people of whatever sex can have different strengths and weaknesses. It is how society functions as a whole that makes it successful. Just because men are better at some things doesn't make them superior. Just different.

If your viewpoints expressed in this discussion are true, I feel sorry for you. If they are designed to annoy, please stop - you are certainly alienating people, especially newbies such as myself.
 
I have no problem observing humans as if they were animals, because that's what they are. Please don't play the race card. Take a hint from Cat, and battle me with supporting scientific evidence, not name-calling.
 
Who's name calling?

The "race card" as you put it was played because it's the logical extension of your arguments.

And I do pity people with your point of view I think it must be very hard to be happy in today's society.
 
mfidiothead, don't take it too serious... or too first level: habilis is teasing. that's a mix of real questions, scientific experimentation and "café chat'.
 
The dearly departed Cellfish was a flamer for posting anti-Mac, pro-Windows posts on numerous occasions. Habilis and Cat are not flamers, they are trying to come up with reasonable explanations for the noticeable difference between the status of men and women in our modern society.

By accusing anyone of flaming when the torches are all cool, you are in fact condemning yourself to hypocrisy. Please make sure you actually know what flaming is before you accuse anyone of it.

If you feel uncomfortable in a discussion such as this, then you may want to avoid this thread. You are a newbie, for sure; but that does not mean you have to have an opinion, or can't have an opinion. If you disagree with the premise of this thread, then it is not the place for you. I don't mean to discriminate against you; I'm just trying to help you find a good footing in this site.
 
There are no rules against flaming. There are rules against trolling, and there are rules against the slandering of one's character, as arden just now barely did.

I'll be watching this closely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top