|
Post by Smithee on Mar 23, 2012 19:48:26 GMT 10
You require "non-obvious" without defining what that is. No-brainers like coming in from the rain.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 23, 2012 19:53:03 GMT 10
Any evidence presented is not representative enough or uses methods that in some instances was used to support other theories but isn't useful for a scary theory. All we are asking for is relevant valid evidence of innate or instinctive human behaviours.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 23, 2012 19:55:01 GMT 10
What happens if there are differences between males and females? What happens if biology does have an effect on behavior? If it is innate or instinctive human behaviour then you have proved your case.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 24, 2012 1:22:04 GMT 10
What happens if there are differences between males and females? What happens if biology does have an effect on behavior? If it is innate or instinctive human behaviour then you have proved your case. Women have an instinctive propensity to bear and nurture offspring. Males have a propensity to protect women and their offspring. Biology dictates these roles, which each sex is uniquely suited for. Case proven.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2012 6:31:12 GMT 10
Women have an instinctive propensity to bear and nurture offspring. Males have a propensity to protect women and their offspring. Biology dictates these roles, which each sex is uniquely suited for. Case proven. An instinct is a specific, innate (genetic), psychologically driven, universal behaviour: A "propensity" is at best a tendency (maybe learned); Bearing children is not psychologically driven; nurture is not a specific behaviour, nor is "protection" (both are objectives); and one needs to distinguish between innate and learned behaviours. Biology is a rather inefficient dictator of these "roles" as there are many exceptions (e.g., people who choose to remain childless, abusive parents and homosexuals). Some societies have high degrees of violence against women (even in our earlier societies wife beating and spousal rape were once acceptable). These exceptions are significant as, if they were innate, one would not expect them to persist in the process of natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 24, 2012 6:50:52 GMT 10
Women have an instinctive propensity to bear and nurture offspring. Males have a propensity to protect women and their offspring. Biology dictates these roles, which each sex is uniquely suited for. Case proven. An instinct is a specific, innate (genetic), psychologically driven, universal behaviour: A "propensity" is at best a tendency (maybe learned); Bearing children is not psychologically driven; nurture is not a specific behaviour, nor is "protection" (both are objectives); and one needs to distinguish between innate and learned behaviours. Biology is a rather inefficient dictator of these "roles" as there are many exceptions (e.g., people who choose to remain childless, abusive parents and homosexuals). Some societies have high degrees of violence against women (even in our earlier societies wife beating and spousal rape were once acceptable). These exceptions are significant as, if they were innate, one would not expect them to persist in the process of natural selection. Just because some men do beat women, it does not mean all do. That is a behavior linked to abuse in childhood. Given normal upbringing, they will naturally fufil those roles. The examples you cite are anomalies. I know you think "gender roles" are driven by societal expectations, but I disagree. People have tried to raise "genderless" children, or girls as boys and vice versa, and all it did was screw them up in the head.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2012 7:25:26 GMT 10
Given normal upbringing, they will naturally fufil those roles. Quite so (at least in our present society).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2012 7:36:01 GMT 10
Then I met his other personas. How many in one, only the Lord could know. To what end?
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Mar 24, 2012 14:24:13 GMT 10
Then I met his other personas. How many in one, only the Lord could know. Whatever you want to think, I thought what mattered is what is said. I visit here often as Philip is a friend and I am always interested in what he has to say but I rarely have anything to add. I spoke out this time because I did not like the changes of the sexual revolution being said to be shallow. I would not want to go back to the good old days for quids.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 24, 2012 20:07:28 GMT 10
The one thing I feel is very hopeful, however, is the over- whelming participation of women in the movement for change Dr. David Suzuki Japanese-Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist (Born this day 1936)
|
|