Michael_W Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 In continuing the human species, nature has allowed men the easy part; fatherhood requires little more than a brief sexual indulgence. Basic biology has thrown on women the burden of pregnancy and childcare. To become a surgeon/astronaut/top politician/actor........etc,. requires commitment. Few men are able to become skilled at the top level in more than one field. If I (though willy-enabled) applied for a "top job" or its training position, I would expect that being known to be also committed to a different occupation would count against me. So a woman may become a "wife and mother" and also an average professional/administrator/what-have-you, or give up her family role and concentrate on "reaching the top". Those men who put their family life first have the same problem, but to lesser degree. How many men have had marriages fail (either openly in divorce, or in "staying together for the children") because of their determination to pursue a career? Humans have evolved over a great length of time, this modern day view of equality is far removed from much of the process that has brought us to where we are. Mans instinct has always been to survive, he hunted , he fought, he built and protected ... all sounds a bit primitive eh, but we are only different in lifestyle and broadness of thought compared to our primitive ancestors. Men and women have always been born equal, genetic differences meant we undertook different roles ..... natural roles ..... using logic and common sense are human instincts something we learn quickly as we face up to challenges. Those who survived and progressed better were those who were stronger, quicker and smarter, those attributes will always remain the key to progress. Can anyone imagine where we would be today if our male ancestors had sat back and said to the women folk .... "I'll stop home and look after the kids today darling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Humans have evolved over a great length of time, this modern day view of equality is far removed from much of the process that has brought us to where we are ... those who were stronger, quicker and smarter, those attributes will always remain the key to progress. Can anyone imagine where we would be today if our male ancestors had sat back and said to the women folk .... "I'll stop home and look after the kids today darling". So you think the problems started when males realised that they could use their greater strength to subdue females, especially when they were pregnant, nursing and caring for children, and use them and their offspring as property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 So you think the problems started when males realised that they could use their greater strength to subdue females, especially when they were pregnant, nursing and caring for children, and use them and their offspring as property? Can you read ? You have also only partially quoted, thats bad form ! So what do you not understand about how things have evolved, and who mentioned any problems You have mentioned pregnant, nursing and caring for children .... is that not part of my point, or did I write in a foreign language ..... jeeez, some people. As for using 'them' and 'offspring' as 'their' property, well the offspring are the 'property' of both parents, if thats how you want to put it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted April 27, 2013 Author Share Posted April 27, 2013 Well, I'm in the 2%. That made perfect sense. It was the previous sentence that took 3 reads. In fact, I think I'd rather mike posts entirely in Latin from now on. Who is the best at Latin - men or women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Who is the best at Latin - men or women? Popes !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted April 27, 2013 Author Share Posted April 27, 2013 Popes !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think one Pope was actually a woman!! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 I think one Pope was actually a woman!! :o Well one person in a frock looks just the same as any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted April 27, 2013 Author Share Posted April 27, 2013 Well one person in a frock looks just the same as any other. I look nice in a frock. I have a nice blue and white one - my unlucky Owls one :rant: One Pope was a male bloke though - it says so on bing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Humans have evolved over a great length of time, this modern day view of equality is far removed from much of the process that has brought us to where we are. Mans instinct has always been to survive, he hunted , he fought, he built and protected ... all sounds a bit primitive eh, but we are only different in lifestyle and broadness of thought compared to our primitive ancestors. Men and women have always been born equal, genetic differences meant we undertook different roles ..... natural roles ..... using logic and common sense are human instincts something we learn quickly as we face up to challenges. Those who survived and progressed better were those who were stronger, quicker and smarter, those attributes will always remain the key to progress. Can anyone imagine where we would be today if our male ancestors had sat back and said to the women folk .... "I'll stop home and look after the kids today darling". Yes we've evolved over a great length of time but we haven't changed much up until a few hundred years ago. As a timeline man flatlined for hundreds of thousands of years with the odd blip here and there. Its only within maybe 20 generations that man has excelled out of all recognition to the past. I think you're wrong to say men and womens instincts won't change especially when you define those instincts based on past roles...hunter gatherer etc. We don't have to send men out any longer..we go to Tesco. Women don't have to stay at the sink..those chores can be shared because the hunter gatherer now has more time, he tamed a leg of lamb in the frozen food section..and it only took him 20 mins.. There's only one distinct difference between male and female which will never change.. unless we start really messing genetically is the difference in physique. If we remove women from the equation as in right now, and they weren't needed re reproduction, man would survive..not only would he survive but that survival would become part of his evolution and part of his genetic make-up over time. If he's capable of doing that then man and woman can also evolve genetically without the need for anything other than connecting an egg and a sperm. Basically we don't need to define our differences..we know them. When we define the gender differences as good/bad, equal/unequal, superior/inferior I think it's more to do with how much we don't think rather than how much were ready to contemplate who and what we are. It's just a lot easier to say..yes I love you, now get to the fridge and crack me a can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Can you read ? You have also only partially quoted, thats bad form ! : Actually, I think it's bad form to quote the whole of a long post when only one paragraph of it is relevant to the point I want to make. At least, this seems better than another forum where it seems a point of honour not only to quote the entire post one is answering, but also all the quotes before that, so the final post begins with a cascade of previous posts, quoted in full. ---------- Post added 28-04-2013 at 19:44 ---------- My post (#49) expressed our experience in "making it big" in medicine. My wife and I qualified together; we were both invited into specialist training, but she chose to remain a general practitioner, giving herself the opportunity to have children and care for them, while I went into the specialist rat-race. There were times when it appeared likely I'd have to choose between our marriage and pursuing a top job in my speciality; fortunately, Harold Wilson's wage freeze (1966) cut off the opportunities I was hoping for, and drove us to Australia. Travelling by ship, I guess we were economic refugee "boat people"! except the Oz government had invited us and subsidised our passage. If I had had to do a full half of the chilcare, I could never have obtained my specialist qualifications. As it was, I did not go for the full commitment that might have lead me to a professorship. To get those top jobs needs a lot of commitment. Maybe I could have done it single and childless, but I made my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.