Are women responsible for the human condition?

by **Soft_Landing** » Sat 28 Aug 2004, 04:11:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o... <pant> Are our women ultimately responsible for the mess we are in?

by **Devil** » Sat 28 Aug 2004, 07:45:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Soft_Landing', '
')
Can we get past the blame game?

by **trespam** » Sat 28 Aug 2004, 08:36:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Devil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Soft_Landing', '
')
Can we get past the blame game?

by **Devil** » Sat 28 Aug 2004, 09:11:16

I was in no way equating humour with political incorrectness. That is your interpretation. It is possible to transcend beyond such basic and crude humour to something much more subtle which does not need common props, but still reflects on the fact that God did provide us with the gift of laughing at ourselves and, indeed, at Her.

by **Aaron** » Sat 28 Aug 2004, 10:17:35

A split jury... interesting.

I admit I expected a much more pissed-off response to this thread.

kudos

From your collective comments, I conclude that this is really a question of genetics.

Is behavior related to genetics in any way?

Do people inherit "psychological disposition"?

by **Soft_Landing** » Sat 28 Aug 2004, 18:27:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nly those with a developed sense of humour are able to. Those who take threads like this seriously never will :D

by **Cool Hand Linc** » Tue 31 Aug 2004, 12:25:20

I love this!

Aaron, It is the woman who has choice.

Oklahoma Educational Television Association or OETA played a series several times about reproduction. It was very enlightening. I can't remember the name of it. Some of you may have seen it on your local educational tv station.They worked at answering the question, why does a man or woman do what they do in the dating and mating game?

They did go into the physical part. Little sperm swims to the egg stuff. But more importantly they spent allot of time going into the mind of the man and woman when seeking a mate.

I believe that woman have much to do with what direction the world takes. More than most people would ever believe. After the selection of a mate. After the birth of a child. They are instrumental in what the next generation becomes. What do the teach there children? How do they nurture there kids. This all is so important.

Ultimately, I believe that man and woman are about 50/50 in determining the future but woman can change the future by what they teach their children at a young age.

by **Aaron** » Wed 15 Sep 2004, 09:50:58

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

http://www.4to40.com/folktales/fable.as ... &counter=1

by **MonteQuest** » Wed 15 Sep 2004, 21:05:29

Some say that men marry for sex, and women marry for success.

by **Guest** » Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:34:14

I've heard the claim made before that men are in charge of sexual relationships and I can assure you that is false.

I am a relatively unattractive male, and I acknowledge that I have no control over dating whatsoever. At this point I will accept any woman without gross physical deformations. If a few more years of lonely nights go by, I might have to relax my standards further.

The myth that men are in control of sexual relationships has an understandable origin. I believe that 90% of the women out there are interested in about 20% of the men, the attractive sector. Those men certainly do have a choice in who they mate, and they are the ones who women use to form this mistasken opinion. The other 80% such as myself do not.

The women who complain that they don't have any control over mating, I have found, are usually upset about having been rejected by one of the elite 20% and then having to settle for someone else. My complains, on the other hand, are based on rejection by every female I have ever approached. There have been dozens if not hundreds throughout my life; I lost count many years ago.

Human beings are petty, vain, violent, and ignorant creatures. I'm not sure who you could blame for that, other than God. Perhaps that's the reason that peak oil theory, and the societal dislocations it implies, is an attractive notion for so many people.

by **Aaron** » Thu 16 Sep 2004, 08:14:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ltimately, I believe that man and woman are about 50/50 in determining the future but woman can change the future by what they teach their children at a young age.

by **k_semler** » Thu 16 Sep 2004, 11:49:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ltimately, I believe that man and woman are about 50/50 in determining the future but woman can change the future by what they teach their children at a young age.

by **milesofsmiles** » Sat 16 Oct 2004, 16:01:02

Why is there an age band here - 12 - 25 suggested? Women can go right on having babies up until 45 or even 50.....? Also 12 isn't generally the age the majority of women globally begin having children. Or did I miss the reasoning there? :oops:

Choice - have women had much choice really? Globally let's think over the centuries: arranged marriages (what % of the world population?), marriages deemed to be 'socially acceptable', accidental pregnancies and no doubt other scenarios = a lot of babies. Just a minor addition (pun :roll:

) - even though one may have subconscious drives to pick a partner with specific characteristics, many women consciously choose a husband or partner without any intention of having children.

It's a bit tentative to suggest that a woman having a child with a man who displays aggressive alpha male tendencies will have offspring with similar qualities (are you meaning that to apply to both sexes?), and that women having offspring with more laidback emotionally erudite men will likewise have similar offspring to their fathers. What happened to the nature/nurture debate? What about the personality and characteristics of the mother? The choice of the individual in how to modify their own behaviour as they mature?

If you're considering the state of the world and whether it's the fault of women, and I take it you mean we're all in a pretty bad way, then I would suggest it has long been the male of the species with ultimate power over whole populations. Glass ceilings still exist, there is little balance.

by **KiddieKorral** » Sat 16 Oct 2004, 16:18:13

Yay for ressurecting old threads! [smilie=angel11.gif]

by **Aaron** » Sat 16 Oct 2004, 18:19:59

I leave it to you... nature or nurture?

by **chris-h** » Sun 17 Oct 2004, 04:06:53

Are women responsible for the human condition?

No TV is resnponsible ...

CONSUME CONSUME MORE CONSUME MORE OR YOU ARE NOTHING !!!!!!!

problems ? NO PROBLEMS . JUST QUIT THINKING OUR COMMERCIALS WILL DO THE THINKING FOR YOU.
AND CONSUME CONSUME MORE !

by **milesofsmiles** » Sun 17 Oct 2004, 04:40:47

The human condition (a broad expression) is at it's best and when all is working as it ideally should, about personal choice.

Nice lady chooses to wear power suit which she probably finds very uncomfortable and she doesn't have much appetite because she's so stressed out by work but has to pretend not to be in order to get on

Nice man who looks very happy with his lot is probably some exec taking a weekend break fishing. Who doesn't worry about his weight.

TV is just another choice thing. You don't have to watch it. Put a coat on it and leave it up the corner like an uninvited guest. Then ask it politely to leave. Voila.

by **milesofsmiles** » Sun 17 Oct 2004, 04:42:06

OK looking at pic again probably not a power suit... but 'smart' anyway.

by **Aaron** » Sun 17 Oct 2004, 08:40:27

The point is...

In comparing the above photos, we have two examples of human.

So the question is this, do we believe that if we start off with pic #1, can we "nurture" #1 into something like #2? Or vice versa...

If tall parents tend to have tall children, (although not always, just mostly), and short parents, short children, then do, for example, "kind" parents tend to have "kind" kids?

Just how much is nature, (genetics), and how much is nurture, (upbringing)?

It's popular to deny the animal nature of humans. Surely we are not just simple animals, but much more? Like only man possess a soul for example. Sure if you expose a kind, intelligent child to certain conditions, you get a reflection of these conditions in the person as they grow.

If we believe that genetic inheritance has NOTHING to do with personality, then this question is pointless. But to the extent genetics does influence disposition, are not the choices made a decision one way or another?

Sure there many example of "forced breeding" choices in human societies. Arranged marriages etc... But the breeding part takes place in private... in secret. (Mostly

Unless we think that most human breeding takes place by rape, then we are still left with a set of choices, made by women, which have shaped the human race.

I posit that from a evolutionary point of view, women have traditionally been attracted to strong, alpha type males, who best guarantee prosperity for their families.

I actually borrowed this concept from Author David Brin in his novel, "The Postman". Which was in turn, borrowed from Frank Herbert's novel Dune.

What seems like a "smoking gun" accusation of guilt in the human condition, is actually a statement of the power of reproductive choices.

The suggestion is that collectively, our women wield the ultimate trump card in human evolution. Keep in mind that the original question here includes the wonderful examples of our human condition, not just the bad parts.

It seems to me that an informed, unified coalition of women, could literally alter the course of human evolution... one way or another.

Note - I certainly believe that individuals choose their actual path... how it will go for them. I'm an "alpha male" type myself, with a strong natural tendency to dominating in groups. It has only been through self examination and circumstance that I have circumvented this inclination. (somewhat) My first reaction is almost always... "Mine!" I feel the urge to dominate simmering beneath almost every decision. Is that pure "nurture"?

In the end
Who's seed is sown?
Men only guess,
While women know.

by **bobcousins** » Sun 17 Oct 2004, 09:08:49

This is obviously on the surface a very stupid question, but when you look deeper it is even more stupid.

Males are merely vectors used by females to transfer genes. Males essentially carry the same genome as females, plus some extra DNA to give them a dick and stop them having babies.

So the whole question is baseless. Its not men or women, but our shared DNA that is responsible for our actions. The "selfish gene" is the guiding force. Theoretically, we can use our much vaunted "intelligence" to change that, but actual intelligent behaviour is very scarce.

Are women responsible for the human condition?

Are women responsible for the human condition?

LOL

Who is online