The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Ch. 9 - Battle of the Sexes
-
In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Ch. 9 - Battle of the Sexes
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17019
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 21
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3511 times
- Been thanked: 1309 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
- seespotrun2008
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
Hmmm. I wonder why this is. Human beings are very complex so I think that there are probably multiple things going on here. I think that part of this is definitely the objectification of women. In a society where women have less money and power they have to compete for males that will “build their nests” so to speak. When women are only described in terms of sexuality or appearance that is not a compliment. It is objectifying that person and taking away her complexity. Women are put into little boxes of who they are or are supposed to be: mother, sex kitten, old maid.One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock’s tail is exhibited by the female, not the male (Dawkins 164).
Queen Rania of Jordan has said that “the face of poverty is a woman”. This is very true. I think that money comes into play in human relationships. Other animals do not face this sort of competition. In human relationships the more money one has the more power one has. If you can keep individuals or groups of people from having money then you get to maintain power. So maybe money is the factor in human relationships that create this difference.
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Of course, it is probably much worse for women whenever they are forbidden to advertise their sexuality, as in Muslim countries. No doubt many of these women would see this as an opportunity, regardless of the fact that it pleases men. But it does seem that we human males have invented the subjugation of the other sex. Does that really happen with other animals? Well, I guess perhaps in a sense it does occasionally, as with the harems that sea lions rule over. And Dawkins mentions that in most cases, at least with mammals and birds, it is the male that is most able to fly the coop after mating, leaving the female stuck with the job of raising the baby. So maybe there is the germ in the animal world of an exploitation that we took much farther.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
I think DWill is on to something regarding the fact that in humans the male is less a caretaker of the young than the female and that this has created distinct sexual role differences between males and females. Historically, the male works as the provider, a role that continued during our hunter/gatherer phase. The female also having such a fairly long gestation period means that males are more mobile and also typically larger and stronger, which is probably why we tend to be patriarchal.seespotrun2008 wrote:Hmmm. I wonder why this is. . . . In a society where women have less money and power they have to compete for males that will “build their nests” so to speak.. . . it should be the males that advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect.
Last edited by geo on Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- seespotrun2008
-
- Graduate Student
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
- 15
- Location: Portland, OR
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
True. In that respect, this division of labor was probably more equal.seespotrun2008 wrote:Actually, meat was a rarity. Women were the ones to keep the tribe going on a regular basis by gathering nuts and berries.Historically, the male works as the provider, a role that continued during our hunter/gatherer phase.
However, to complete my thought, the male as warrior serves as protector in a species that tends to be aggressive and battle other clans for food and land, the females of our species have come to depend on the male for survival and protection. Thus there is competition to get the biggest, strongest male, so females have to advertise. Maybe? It's interesting to note that much of the "advertising" that takes place—lipstick, high heels, clothing and hair styles—are cultural (memetic) and not genetic.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- Suzanne
-
- Book General
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:51 pm
- 14
- Location: New Jersey
- Has thanked: 518 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Geo wrote:
However, once the peacock has been captured, the drab hen needs to keep her appearance up to keep him. This is what I have a problem with. See, seespotrun, maybe I've redeemed myself a little. There are two many divorces because the "rich" man no longer finds his wife disireable, and he knows, there are those dolled up women waiting to fight for his attention.
Oh, I'm going to kick myself for saying this, seespotrun may kick me too, but I have to agree. Beauty holds power in our society. A beautiful woman has the capability to manipulate men, and any man who says otherwise, is kidding themselves. Yes, women do doll themselves up to attract men, and the richer, the better.Thus there is competition to get the biggest, strongest male, so females have to advertise. Maybe? It's interesting to note that much of the "advertising" that takes place—lipstick, high heels, clothing and hair styles—are cultural (memetic) and not genetic.
However, once the peacock has been captured, the drab hen needs to keep her appearance up to keep him. This is what I have a problem with. See, seespotrun, maybe I've redeemed myself a little. There are two many divorces because the "rich" man no longer finds his wife disireable, and he knows, there are those dolled up women waiting to fight for his attention.
- Saffron
-
- I can has reading?
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
- 16
- Location: Randolph, VT
- Has thanked: 474 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
I am using a quote from Spot's post in order to address Geo's speculation about patriarchy. Human society has only be patriarchal for a small percentage of its history. I can't say exactly what it was. I don't think right now anyone really can, but there is plenty of evidence that society has not always been patriarchal. Why patriarchy? One reason must be linked to the fact that money is power. What happens to your wealth (I mean whatever assess you have -- money, land, jewels, goods, etc.) when you die? In Europe (even before it was Europe) it went to one’s children. How exactly can one be assured that one’s children are really one's children? Well, a woman just knows. What about a man -- can he be sure? The way to be sure is to control your woman's sexuality.seespotrun2008 wrote: Queen Rania of Jordan has said that “the face of poverty is a woman”. This is very true. I think that money comes into play in human relationships. Other animals do not face this sort of competition. In human relationships the more money one has the more power one has. If you can keep individuals or groups of people from having money then you get to maintain power. So maybe money is the factor in human relationships that create this difference.
Anyway, this is one of the theories that explains some aspects of patriarchy and why the face of poverty is a woman's.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
- Saffron
-
- I can has reading?
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
- 16
- Location: Randolph, VT
- Has thanked: 474 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Patriarchy seems to have come from bands of herding people in the middle east area of the world. Muscular strength doesn't really explain much about why patriarchy; more about the how. Human culture existed for tens of thousands of years in some other form than patriarchy, so it must be something other than the physical ability to dominate that caused patriarchy to develop.Interbane wrote:The misogyny of religion has lead to patriarchy in recent millennia. I would guess that before that, muscular strength of men was one more factor to weigh in on the prowess of an individual, combined with wisdom which in all fairness we can say is split evenly.l