I think I need to revise an earlier essay that I wrote regarding evolution-determined gender roles.
I think I was incorrect in my assessment. Female members of a species probably do not have as much of a motivation for sheer uninhibited promiscuity. This unfortunately does not necessarily make them better. The shallow, morality-free angle that they do harbor and exploit is golddiggery.
Unfortunately in the labyrinthine maze that is romantic crap, men are assholes and women are dumbasses. In that Laura Schlessinger book, she claims a woman "is just doing what her natural biological urges are telling her to do."
Huh? Who gives a crap what those "biological urges" are? Biological urges very often, very pointedly, point someone in the wrong direction. So what if that's what biology dictates? Do you only possess biological urges, with no accompanying sense of morality, no judgment, no sense of right and wrong? And that is only the beginning. What about doing what is right and healthy for you as a human being?
What about growing as a person who exists in this world, contributing something positive to society, actually participating in it?
If that is the brand of "evolution" these scientists are using, then you would have to use an analogous version of "evolution" for females. Females out in the natural world are very materialistic and shallow. They have about as much motivation for sticking with one male, as any male has for sticking with one female. It might not be sheer promiscuity being the driving factor, but it is something equally as shallow and abhorrent.
I will preface the rest of the essay by stating that I am not endorsing a single iota of this behavior.
The purpose of this essay is that I am trying to hammer home a point. We are Homo sapiens, which by definition means "wise man." We cannot and we should not allow ourselves to succumb to the same absence of virtue that defines lower animals.
Lower animals are characterized by the following: lack of judgment, no stable two-parent homes, being slaves to biological urges, extreme and often deadly violence, the list of things that humans call "soulless" goes on and on. Even though the Latin "anima" means "soul," they are still lower animals. They do not possess the arsenal of empathy, compassion, the concept of future-planning, a grasp of consequences -- all of which are supposed to set us humans apart from them.
but by coddling and encouraging the worst [[_excesses]] of human behavior. _what the hell kind of society would this create if people just decided on doing whatever their fancies impulsively dictated?
Whatever their whims, whatever their fickle, irresponsible hearts' delight__ What would happen if people simply decided not to use conscious, voluntary reasoning and good judgment anymore? What would happen to society if people did not step bakc for a minute and think, "wait a minute, maybe I should consider the consequences before jumping in the saxk with a complete stranger?"
utilize critical thinking and say, "maybe I should forego a few minutes of pleasure and instead think for the long term?"
I'll tell you what kind of society. The kind that this one is circling the drain towards.
Provisions, rations, vittles, resources, whatever you want to call it. Females out in the wild in modern-day primates as well as females of our own primate ancestors are mostly opportunistic gold digger whores. They appear to always be constantly keeping one eye out the door for a bigger, better male that might come along. They always keep one foot ready out the door for a male with a bigger habitat, better access to food, and an assumed better ability to fight off natural predators.
Females of early hominid species, and indeed, of all dioecious species, also have as much of an incentive to always keep one foot out the door. If not to sleep around specifically, then certainly to latch on to the next eligible male.
*protection from predators -- mastodons, sabretooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.
Not all males are equally capable of wrestling down a mammoth with one's bare hands. A female is more likely to choose a male that is physically capable of protecting her and himself from natural predators. neither are all males equally capable of utilizing weapons for killing enemies.
with the advent of tools such as the bow and arrow, this reason pretty much became obsolete. a weapon such as this can be fired from a distant range, without needing to___ Females can be as skilled at using a weapon or tool as males can. But if a female is not capable of firing a weapon for protection herself, this still hardly levels the playing field for males.
Those types of unevolved females, the ones from whence too may evolutionists derived the word "evolution," are mostly shallow golddigging whores.
Are you familiar with the concept of co-evolution?
Two mutually beneficial, but distinct species will evolve in cooperation with each other. so that if one develops a trait that benefits it, the other species will adjust itself and develop a trait that allows it to "keep up" with the first species.
It turns out the same thing is true with human behavioral evolution.
The female does not in fact necessarily require a male that would provide "security, safety, and stick around for the long-term in order to help with the raising of the children."
As a matter of fact, it turns out that all the female truly requires in order to provide security and safety for the children is a whole lot of money. Regardless of where that money comes from. She does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul to help raise the children or anything like that.
This is true in the wild. It turns out that females are constantly on the lookout for a better, more fit, prime optimal specimen of male. if she finds one, then screw the current one. the current one is the one she chose because it was the best option in the immediate vicinity. but if she happens upon an even better male specimen, then pshaw. screw the first one. As all scientists know, the female's contribution to the existence, upbringing, and well-being of offspring is enormous. why should she waste her time raising your sorry, punk-ass second-choice genes? she would spend her time rather growing a fetus that houses the more fit genes.
Anyway, the female does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul. she just needs a source of money.
This is true with the poverty class. We see this all around us. The female reproduces as often as possible. As soon as she finds an ideal male, she will ditch reproducing with the current male, and she will reproduce with the most recent and better option.
We also see this with the wealthy upper crust. Do women stay married to rich men for all eternity? No. They marry them, then divorce them to get half their junk.
So if you want to continue talking about this and to pretend that this downward spiral back down into primordial ooze is headed in the right direction, then I can continue on all day. I will put you where you belong. But if you would much rather admit that this is all detrimental to our species, then we can work. If you would just realize that this is all very harmful, then we can cooperate and be a little smarter. And we can be more evolved.
I think I was incorrect in my assessment. Female members of a species probably do not have as much of a motivation for sheer uninhibited promiscuity. This unfortunately does not necessarily make them better. The shallow, morality-free angle that they do harbor and exploit is golddiggery.
Unfortunately in the labyrinthine maze that is romantic crap, men are assholes and women are dumbasses. In that Laura Schlessinger book, she claims a woman "is just doing what her natural biological urges are telling her to do."
Huh? Who gives a crap what those "biological urges" are? Biological urges very often, very pointedly, point someone in the wrong direction. So what if that's what biology dictates? Do you only possess biological urges, with no accompanying sense of morality, no judgment, no sense of right and wrong? And that is only the beginning. What about doing what is right and healthy for you as a human being?
What about growing as a person who exists in this world, contributing something positive to society, actually participating in it?
If that is the brand of "evolution" these scientists are using, then you would have to use an analogous version of "evolution" for females. Females out in the natural world are very materialistic and shallow. They have about as much motivation for sticking with one male, as any male has for sticking with one female. It might not be sheer promiscuity being the driving factor, but it is something equally as shallow and abhorrent.
I will preface the rest of the essay by stating that I am not endorsing a single iota of this behavior.
The purpose of this essay is that I am trying to hammer home a point. We are Homo sapiens, which by definition means "wise man." We cannot and we should not allow ourselves to succumb to the same absence of virtue that defines lower animals.
Lower animals are characterized by the following: lack of judgment, no stable two-parent homes, being slaves to biological urges, extreme and often deadly violence, the list of things that humans call "soulless" goes on and on. Even though the Latin "anima" means "soul," they are still lower animals. They do not possess the arsenal of empathy, compassion, the concept of future-planning, a grasp of consequences -- all of which are supposed to set us humans apart from them.
but by coddling and encouraging the worst [[_excesses]] of human behavior. _what the hell kind of society would this create if people just decided on doing whatever their fancies impulsively dictated?
Whatever their whims, whatever their fickle, irresponsible hearts' delight__ What would happen if people simply decided not to use conscious, voluntary reasoning and good judgment anymore? What would happen to society if people did not step bakc for a minute and think, "wait a minute, maybe I should consider the consequences before jumping in the saxk with a complete stranger?"
utilize critical thinking and say, "maybe I should forego a few minutes of pleasure and instead think for the long term?"
I'll tell you what kind of society. The kind that this one is circling the drain towards.
Provisions, rations, vittles, resources, whatever you want to call it. Females out in the wild in modern-day primates as well as females of our own primate ancestors are mostly opportunistic gold digger whores. They appear to always be constantly keeping one eye out the door for a bigger, better male that might come along. They always keep one foot ready out the door for a male with a bigger habitat, better access to food, and an assumed better ability to fight off natural predators.
Females of early hominid species, and indeed, of all dioecious species, also have as much of an incentive to always keep one foot out the door. If not to sleep around specifically, then certainly to latch on to the next eligible male.
*protection from predators -- mastodons, sabretooth tigers, dinosaurs, etc.
Not all males are equally capable of wrestling down a mammoth with one's bare hands. A female is more likely to choose a male that is physically capable of protecting her and himself from natural predators. neither are all males equally capable of utilizing weapons for killing enemies.
with the advent of tools such as the bow and arrow, this reason pretty much became obsolete. a weapon such as this can be fired from a distant range, without needing to___ Females can be as skilled at using a weapon or tool as males can. But if a female is not capable of firing a weapon for protection herself, this still hardly levels the playing field for males.
Those types of unevolved females, the ones from whence too may evolutionists derived the word "evolution," are mostly shallow golddigging whores.
Are you familiar with the concept of co-evolution?
Two mutually beneficial, but distinct species will evolve in cooperation with each other. so that if one develops a trait that benefits it, the other species will adjust itself and develop a trait that allows it to "keep up" with the first species.
It turns out the same thing is true with human behavioral evolution.
The female does not in fact necessarily require a male that would provide "security, safety, and stick around for the long-term in order to help with the raising of the children."
As a matter of fact, it turns out that all the female truly requires in order to provide security and safety for the children is a whole lot of money. Regardless of where that money comes from. She does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul to help raise the children or anything like that.
This is true in the wild. It turns out that females are constantly on the lookout for a better, more fit, prime optimal specimen of male. if she finds one, then screw the current one. the current one is the one she chose because it was the best option in the immediate vicinity. but if she happens upon an even better male specimen, then pshaw. screw the first one. As all scientists know, the female's contribution to the existence, upbringing, and well-being of offspring is enormous. why should she waste her time raising your sorry, punk-ass second-choice genes? she would spend her time rather growing a fetus that houses the more fit genes.
Anyway, the female does not necessarily need the male to stick around for the long haul. she just needs a source of money.
This is true with the poverty class. We see this all around us. The female reproduces as often as possible. As soon as she finds an ideal male, she will ditch reproducing with the current male, and she will reproduce with the most recent and better option.
We also see this with the wealthy upper crust. Do women stay married to rich men for all eternity? No. They marry them, then divorce them to get half their junk.
So if you want to continue talking about this and to pretend that this downward spiral back down into primordial ooze is headed in the right direction, then I can continue on all day. I will put you where you belong. But if you would much rather admit that this is all detrimental to our species, then we can work. If you would just realize that this is all very harmful, then we can cooperate and be a little smarter. And we can be more evolved.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment