- #421
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,337
I'm talking about all through history.DanP said:I'm talking about a much larger time span than what happened to women last century.
I'm talking about all through history.DanP said:I'm talking about a much larger time span than what happened to women last century.
Evo said:I'm talking about all through history.
I can not claim any extensive knowledge in the area but from what I have read matriarchal societies were rather exceptional. And either way, even in a matriarchal society, women most likely had to accept what ever male physically bested any other suitors as opposed to what ever mate they desired. While males may have respected them and looked for their acceptance any male at any time could physically displace the previous suitor and become the only viable choice of partner. An alpha female does not necessarily possesses the same freedoms as her male counterparts. Legends of amazonian tribes that dominated their males, I am fairly certain, are primarily the product of fantasy.DanP said:I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.
Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.
And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.
Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.
I do not believe Zoob is claiming you are supporting ID just that you are using a mixed up logic which most of us learned in school and which happens to feed the acceptance of ID.DanP said:It has nothing with intelligent design. You seem to believe that it does involve a design. No. It doesn't.
Proton Soup said:i believe there are matriarchal societies in Mexico, still. and from a show i saw long ago when television was still somewhat educational, the Zoe indigenous people of south america practice group marriages, where everyone has multiple wives/husbands. quite a lot of variation exists, and even lifelong (our supposed ideal) pairbonds are common in the animal kingdom.
DanP said:I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.
Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.
And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.
Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.
TheStatutoryApe said:Its all too easy to get these things tangled up especially when one is focused on the general mechanism of evolutionary success.
GeorginaS said:The question thrown back at you, then. Some numbers and/or hard facts w/r/t this claim
significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.
would be really helpful, because there's nothing in my knowledge base to support this.
zoobyshoe said:No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.
DanP said:Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.
I wasn't referring to the last hundred years, you brought that up. But you could look at the still ongoing practice of pre-arranged marriages in Asia and Africa.DanP said:Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.
DanP said:We probably need an anthropologist to help us. Dono if there are any on the board.
GeorginaS said:When looked at and stated that way, though, it does then therefore mean that "evolution" has an agenda, as if it were some sentient being with ideas and a desire for a certain specific outcome.
GeorginaS said:On what basis are you making the claims, then, about this:
significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.
You need an anthropologist to prove your statements for you?
Evo said:I wasn't referring to the last hundred years, you brought that up. But you could look at the still ongoing practice of pre-arranged marriages in Asia and Africa.
DanP said:I subscribe to Richard Dawkin's theory that genes play a causal role in evolution.
TheStatutoryApe said:. In general though I think that Dawkins and most evolutionary biologists would disagree that genes actually drive people to procreate in any direct manner.
.
TheStatutoryApe said:I said, it is difficult to communicate the idea of an evolutionary mechanism without using words that seem to imply "purpose". I also think that it may be possible that some form of "self directed" evolution occurs. I do not think that this is very well supported by any evidence so far though.
TheStatutoryApe said:Polygamy still requires social bonding and stable hierarchal family units as opposed to the simian Casanova who spreads his seed where ever his fancy may carry him.
The idea that reproduction is the drive behind sex and sexual attraction seems to imply a direct link as opposed to the indirect link that enjoyment of sex (independent of a "desire to reproduce") leads to more reproduction and therefore is more evolutionarily successful.DanP said:I agree , genes do not do actually drive ppl in a direct manner. Nobody stated this.
In fact, I stated time and again in this thread that an "agenda" is not required in those theories.
DanP said:Can you explain what you mean by "self-directed" evolution theories please ?
TheStatutoryApe said:This is getting even further off topic though.
BobG said:True. Just to get back "on topic", nerdy guys prefer girls that are interested in ensuring there's a future for the human race.
GeorginaS said:So. 28 pages in, have we come to any definitive conclusions yet? I can't figure out whether or not I qualify. :grumpy:
(All I ll write here is a personal POV. It should not be considered an excuse for cheating behaviors. )turbo-1 said:Very true. I have a former friend that looks a lot like Robert Shaw, and he always cultivated that look. He is a rounder and a cheat, and he tried using me (without my consent) as an alibi when he came to Maine to work (which he did) and cheat (which he did) on his wife, whom I loved dearly as a friend. She called one evening asking to speak to my "friend" because he had gotten an offer on a muscle-car that he had restored, and when I told her that I hadn't seen him for weeks, she said "oh" in a tone like I had just gut-punched her.
turbo-1 said:Not satisfied with your spouse? Be a real human being and cut off the relationship BEFORE you act on your impulses and cheat.
By this line of reasoning, because I don't know you and have made no promises not to rob you blind, I would have nothing to apologize for if I chose to do it. It would be nice to know you'd bear me no grudge.DanP said:I cannot subscribe to the popular opinion that a person who sleeps with married man / women can be considered a "home-wrecker". The "free" person owns no allegiance whatsoever to the spouse of the cheater.
This is why I find hilarious that a part of society demands that the mistresses of Tiger Woods apologize to his wife. Sorry, they did nothing wrong, and they owe no allegiance to her.
Magellan7t said:By this line of reasoning, because I don't know you and have made no promises not to rob you blind, I would have nothing to apologize for if I chose to do it. It would be nice to know you'd bear me no grudge.
Magellan7t said:The mistresses wittingly and willingly did Tiger Woods' family an injury which could have easily been avoided. Tiger Woods carries more responsibility to his family and has more to be sorry for, but the women he slept with were also in the wrong.
Magellan7t said:If the roles were reversed and the actions of the mistresses were reciprocated against them downstream, I'm sure they'd be unhappy about it. The purview of fair play extends well beyond upholding contractual obligations.
Magellan7t said:What this boils down to is the Golden and Silver Rules. These are fundamental logical and ethical ideas that small children are able to grasp.
Char. Limit said:Wait, an abortion? I thought you were talking about cheating spouses... Where does an abortion come in?
If it were illegal, they'd be getting prosecuted, rather than criticized. But legality is neither here nor there.DanP said:This logic is flawed. First, sleeping around is not a criminal offense in any democratic society I know off today. Robbery / armed robbery are legally incriminated.
Second, even if you accept the comparison, in this case you can only compare Tiger to the perpetrator and you can only incriminate him, and not other persons.
Yes, no allegiance is owed on their part, but they're still at fault.Tiger Woulds is the only one who owed any allegiance whatsoever to his wife. The women he slept with where not related / friends with Erin. They did not owed any allegiance.
I agree with this.Also, psychologically, the bulk of stress (injury) caused is directly attributable to Tiger, and not to 3rd party persons.
I see what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the responsibility is shared. Tiger deserves most of the blame, but the mistresses have some to own as well.Blaming any other person for his actions is a shift of responsibility, a thing which I profoundly dislike, and which unfortunately I see more and more often.
No one would argue he would have an easy time of getting women into bed. This has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that he'll be tempted more often than most men. The situation is easily avoidable because either party can simply choose not to have sex with the other. People are blamable for their actions because they have the ability to choose.Third, the situation is by no means so easily avoidable as you seem to make it. If X doesn't sleep with me, this doesn't mean all women will reject me, especially when you benefit the status and power Tiger has. It's simple. If you a women is uninterested, 10 others will be ready to step in the open spot. If he wants to sleep around, he *WILL* have always have a good pool to choose from. And this leaving aside escorts.
Yes, there's always risk. Murder is a constant of society - this doesn't make it okay.Forth, ppl get hurt in life all the time. It's a play-field out there.t.
She would most likely blame both people; however, the point was that no one likes to be cheated on.Actually, you have no mean of determining where a cheated upon women will place the blame. You have your own mental processes and your inference of what other women would do in assigning blame are heavily biased by this.
Yes, the world is unfair. That's hardly an argument.And fair play ? Where ? I fail to see any around :P
Eh? Do you know what the Golden Rule is?Ethics changes all the time. 100 / 60 years ago rigid adherence to "golden rules" robbed the women of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, today we recognize the right of a woman to an abortion. A simple example of how ethics evolve, as society change.
If English isn't your first language, "sensible" generally means to be of sound judgment. "Sensitive," would fit more closely with your meaning.It's time to sober up, and change the "ethics" in assigning imaginary blames. The core of society has gone way too sensible and soft.
The Golden Rule is a specific philosophical idea: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Silver Rule is closely related as the negative: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."DanP said:It comes in when you appeal to "Golden rules". Luckily some of humans had the power to break the status quo of "golden rules" and make the society advance. It;s just an example what terrible things happen when you adhere to rules you consider to be immutable. You reject humans the most basic rights possible.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for a man who lives so comfortably, but he will get more attention for this than the millions of others who do the same thing. One of the downsides of life in the public eye. Personally, I'm not focused specifically on Tiger's case, but DanP's ideas instead.Char. Limit said:Also, I feel sorry for Tiger. I'm quite sure that if Annika Sorenstam was found to be involved in dozens of affairs, there would be not nearly as much coverage, and many people would place the blame on the men for "willfully doing Annika Sorenstam's family an injury."
I also happen to believe that Americans spend too much time focusing on celebrities in general. Of course, there isn't a thing I can do to change that.
Magellan7t said:I agree with this.I see what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the responsibility is shared. Tiger deserves most of the blame, but the mistresses have some to own as well.
Magellan7t said:Do you know what the Golden Rule is?
If we were talking about organisms without intellect, such as insects, you would be right - they simply are what they are. People, on the other hand, make choices which they have to account for. People who aren't fit to account for their actions are generally wards of someone who can.DanP said:I personally would never blame any 3rd person if my girlfriend would cheat on me. In fact, I am not sure I would even blame her. Because, really no one is to blame. There is no blame in being yourself, whatever that means. And if by being herself means cheating, so be it. I am not into the business of changing life partners thinking and action patterns, life is too short for this. I would just move away to another relation.
EDIT: I realize that the sensibility to various form of stress is largely individual, and there might be persons who might have a hard time coping with cheating.
An android or a sociopath might handle it just that way. Betrayal of trust is much more difficult than that for most, especially where the welfare of children is involved.Cheating is about decisions. She / he decided to cheat in a relationship. If it happens and you find it disturbed you, you should make a cold analysis of what you want, and act accordingly.
As an atheist who cares very little for religion and superstition, I don't think it's reasonable to throw away a good principle just because it has ties to a religious philosophy. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.A largely fuzzy ethic system which is largely anchored into religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I can't say I value it too much, since in Western World religious beliefs led to paradoxical situations, in which 'ethic' was largely unilateral from a sex point of view. I think
we can thank to religious/church influences the fact that women couldn't vote or have an abortion till very late in modern times. While the principle was sound, It's practical implementation was a joke.
Magellan7t said:If we were talking about organisms without intellect, such as insects, you would be right - they simply are what they are. People, on the other hand, make choices which they have to account for. People who aren't fit to account for their actions are generally wards of someone who can.
Magellan7t said:An android or a sociopath might handle it just that way. Betrayal of trust is much more difficult than that for most, especially where the welfare of children is involved.
Magellan7t said:As an atheist who cares very little for religion and superstition, I don't think it's reasonable to throw away a good principle just because it has ties to a religious philosophy. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.