Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, the first, original "culture" was all one, and given the amount of cultures where the women are the leaders vs. the amount of cultures where the men are the leaders makes me think it is pretty safe to assume that the original culture was based more on what you would find in the majority of the animal kingdom, where the males were in charge.
Those cultures where females are in charge would be an offshoot later on down the biological road.
And, for the record, I actually buy into the polyamorous debate as well.
But, I am a biologist not an anthropologist.
You cannot extrapolate that the original culture was led by males based on today's ratio of women-led vs. male-led cultures. 50,000-60,000 years have past since that original culture and today cultures. That is a VERY long time for those ratios to get skewed.
Also, to say that the majority of the animal kingdom is male-led is a gross over-statement/over-simplification. For the majority of the mammals, males and females rarely interact except during breeding. In just about every example I can think of, males and females live in small single-gender groups. There are exceptions of course (primates being a prime example) but to say that males are in charge would do injustice to their complex social hierarchy, just as it does our society.
Finally, even it it were true that the majority of animal societal groups were male-led doesn't mean that there is a mandate for human societal groups to be male-led. It CERTAINLY should not be used in order to justify any sort of laws that would mandate that a woman be subservient to a man.
Again, if it works for you then keep on doing what you are doing. But don't justify your rationale based on what you perceive the situation to be in nature. Nature is just too complex for that sort of extrapolation to be worthwhile.
You cannot extrapolate that the original culture was led by males based on today's ratio of women-led vs. male-led cultures. 50,000-60,000 years have past since that original culture and today cultures. That is a VERY long time for those ratios to get skewed.
Also, to say that the majority of the animal kingdom is male-led is a gross over-statement/over-simplification. For the majority of the mammals, males and females rarely interact except during breeding. In just about every example I can think of, males and females live in small single-gender groups. There are exceptions of course (primates being a prime example) but to say that males are in charge would do injustice to their complex social hierarchy, just as it does our society.
Finally, even it it were true that the majority of animal societal groups were male-led doesn't mean that there is a mandate for human societal groups to be male-led. It CERTAINLY should not be used in order to justify any sort of laws that would mandate that a woman be subservient to a man.
Again, if it works for you then keep on doing what you are doing. But don't justify your rationale based on what you perceive the situation to be in nature. Nature is just too complex for that sort of extrapolation to be worthwhile.
But, aren't primates THE example of the animal kingdom we should be looking at when talking about human nature?
Regardless, to each their own, and I never said this was for everyone and I think we should get back to topic so others can give their opinions.
But, aren't primates THE example of the animal kingdom we should be looking at when talking about human nature?
Regardless, to each their own, and I never said this was for everyone and I think we should get back to topic so others can give their opinions.
I think your conversation is right on topic, really getting to the heart of the matter, or at least trying to.
I've heard about using the reverse psychology with men since forever. Tricking men into thinking that they are the leaders - manipulating them, basically. I could never master the skill, though -
It works! I couldn't master it, either, though. If you haven't witnessed it in your family of origin, it's unlikely to be good at it.
I really wouldn't mind a leader despite what many here may think. As a matter of fact, I'd love a leader! Yet to be with somebody who wouldn't run the car straight into the wall, unfortunately. That leader has to be better than I am! Way better than I am! The saddest part is that even if one just like that bumps into me right now, I no longer have the trust necessary to hand him the reign...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-
