Women??! Why I just love 'em . . . seeing I've got some of that in my build as well--all the while carrying a majority of attraction for 'em as in opposite sexual build. Thus, I think it a very fair, and good subject.
Krumple, you have hit the nail on the head. The H. sapien, like most animals, do not naturally permanently pair bond. Also with that, as most would surely know, neither is monogyny, nor monandry so absolute a thing--even today, as in parts of Nepal, for example. Therefore firstly, a quote that I just love to share with folks when talking about this so interesting, luring, and hot a subject, viz.:
[INDENT]Sir, it is so far from being natural for a man and a woman to live in a state of marriage, that we find all the motives that they have for remaining in that connection, and the restraints which civilised society imposes to prevent separation, are hardly sufficient to keep them together.
[INDENT][INDENT]Dr. Samuel Johnson (in a writing on 31, March 1772)
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]There will be a number of things that I'd like to present and discuss here, if that would be ok with you, William, since I reason and feel that they are most important to keep in mind.
For starters, sex (as in gender) is also, like some many other things, a continuum--it is not simply a mater of physical outward appearance. We all start off at being female, the default state, and remain that way unless the 'master switch (SRY)attachment on the 23rd chromosome succeeds in blocking the 'female' DAX1, and WNT4 (antithesis genes). Just a one pair base change on that Y chromosome will produce a female. If the DAX1 blocks the SRY, a female results. This activity leads to gonode building, upon which androgens driving the genitalia towards external build, to various degrees.
SRY is also expressed in the brain, and that along with so many other detailed stuff, leads to the understanding that there is brain sex as well as somatically defined gender, and that the brain sex is even more important (in many cases) than physical sex.
So, really, what might be a 'woman?' Well, we'll have to maintain a slightly more practical point of view--XX build, with little minimum male-brain overlap, I guess.
I agree with you, William about the pair-bond relationship (especially) being one of synergy, more so than pure equality, yet would question if we could not reposition our usual understanding of 'equality' to a point where--in the purer flow of nature--pair bonding is also about equality. I would argue that in looking at the pair bond from that point, we'd be talking about equality in the sense of experiencing the gender of our sexual orientation. The male must make effort to empathize what it is be female, and the female, male. The female should be given room to be fully female, and the male, fully male--to the degree that the bond is not weakened by such. ①
Enough hot air for now...sorry... I will return and finish some ideas, and I'd look to see debate (academically orientated, of course, rather than 'flaming' and 'negative' arguments) and discussion on that most beautiful of natural forms, the fully grown, adult female !!
① By nature, the male is more stongly driven towards promiscuous activities [note...more strongly, females can have that drive too]. So, for example, if in a certain pair bond, it is of open understanding and agreement that polygyny and/or polyandry is acceptable, then there is no damage to the pair bond. If one or both partners do not accept and agree to such, an act of promiscuity will damage the pair bond--which is not good.
It took me a while to actually digest what you were saying Will. I couldn't quite tell if you were just pointing out your own position or subtly trying to point out you can't escape your cultural upbringing. So I selected one of your comments to point out that I think some women would find what you said a compliment and there would probably be an equal amount that would find it offensive. I personally know some women who didn't like their role as a mother and they get scorned often for leaving their children. One in particular never wanted to have children but she did it to make her husband happy. But she left after a few years because she didn't like the role she was forced into doing. She hasn't completely abandoned her children, she still visits them but she doesn't want the role of the "homemaker".
So I wonder if you would say she is ignoring her natural traits or she doesn't have the traits you see women naturally having. I can't imagine she is the only exception to this either, I'm sure there are many others like her. Perhaps it is our culture that prevents more from doing the same?
Woman don't aim high enough, and I disapprove of that.
I agree with you William that the joining of women and men is not about equality but of a balance indifferent to fairness and equality, perhaps to transcend equality, and this is the balance.
Woman take life too much like a game, at least, from observing highschool. There is no self-actualizing motivators. There's just the desire for boys, clothes, for "show and tell". That's the game. As if appearance and reality were the same thing!
Personally I do not think the relationship between a man and a woman is about "equality", it is about a synergy and a bond one has to the other.
In the workplace, yes. In regards to compensation there must be equity. I do not believe a woman's place is in the home, but I will until my dying breath advocate a Mother's place is definitely in the home when she has her young to care for.
I do not believe in dominance or control in any respect,, but I do believe when a stalemate arises, the final decision should be the responsibility of the male.
I think one of the greatest mistakes we have ever made is forcing the Mother into the workplace.
I know in these politically correct times, some will be uncomfortable with what I think and I am ready to defend how I think.
Thank you for taking the time to consider it, William, and for your willingness to discuss it on top of being candid with your thoughts and feelings all the while. I, for one (and am quite sure others would express the same), appreciate that, and I will make every effort to match your quality.
First allow me to recap, just a touch (in order to protect context). The starting statement:
[INDENT]My Dad offered to me a bit of wisdom that has stayed with me all my life and I have tried to live up to it as best that I could and that was, "William, never go to bed with a woman you would not want to spend the rest of your life with".
[/INDENT]
The first questions:
[INDENT]What reasons might we be able to attribute to your father's having said such a thing? (main point-spend rest of life with)
By what line of reasoning and evidence would we be able to defend the conclusion that such a statement is a reflection of wisdom?
[/INDENT]
In your response, I find a number of connections that tie in with that first statement you had made in post #8. These are as follows:
[INDENT]What it meant to me with in hindsight . . . I can comment in context with . . . he did practice what he preached, they stayed together for their entire lives, divorce was not that easy, marriage is not easy, [the well-being of the child] is what marriage is all about, and, . . . those who chose to engage in sex should know each other well enough, that if the woman becomes pregnant, they will have what it takes for each to live up to the enormous responsibility that will entail.
[/INDENT]
I very much reason that to balance all things that come into play, in their various degrees, is going to be really, really hard to do (if not impossible), but I'll do my best to adhere to the nature of things--because, after all, that is the real core--backbone, muscles, and tendons--of it all.
Since the words that your father had told you had most obviously been pinned on the premise that impregnating a female demanded adherence to a social construct (marriage), would it not be fair to weigh that premise (which itself is most definitely due to a specific social condition) against the bulk of nature itself, to test for any possible variation of value assignments?
In a social condition where the harem model is a choice by those who can afford such, we could reasonably conclude that such words would not have as much weight as they would in a social condition wherein marriage would, by legal demand of that society, be a one time event of a male taking a female to be a legal, lifetime partner, which partnership could not be broken (divorce illegal; as in Peru)? In a primative social condition where promiscurity (polygyny/polyandry) is a choice (no great taboo), such words would admittedly have even less weight--and could be seen as not being so wise economically, even.
Therefore, in light of even just this much, would it not be reasonable enough to understand that within the framework of a certain social condition, his words could well be seen as representing wisdom, whereas in another, they may not be seen in such light--to varying degrees? I reason that due to such a naturally possible understanding, we must use caution because we are indirectly asserting one social condition as being in absolute correctness over another--which will surely depend on many other factors than just their marriage systems.
It is a fact, however, that around only 3% of mammals are permanent pair bonders (about the same rate as one take on the percentage of homosexuals in the USA); and yet in most of the world that has become the social condition. Most of us guys would probably not like the idea of sharing a woman, a wife, with our brothers, but there is that social condition in which that choice is there. . . and it is legal marriage--although some of us would likely not mind the certain island condition wherein at some point in time, the females have the choice of 'raping' a male--if we could really call it 'rape,' rather than festive liscence to have sex with any male of choice by a group of females.
Marriage as it is in most of the world today, is a relatively new concept compared to the history of the earth, permanent pair bonding is not natural to the human, is very dependent upon biology, and so why should we not be careful with the idea?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace