Your premise is wrong from the start. Our closest living relatives (Bonobos) have a very female-dominant society, so to just suggest that CLEARLY we are a male-dominant species is flawed without addressing that point.
It's hard to argue with you, not because there's no argument to be made against it, but just because your premise is so off base...
Not always. I'm bigger than almost all males I know (bigger muscles, bigger frame, taller), and I'm not that much of an outlier among females. Humans don't have that much in the way of difference between males and females. And any difference that we do have is easily overcome.
There are many, many more exceptions than bonobos, bonobos just also happen to be our closest living relatives.
Plus your OP is just reinforcing all the negative stereotypes out there about people in my field...
(also, no offense ment but I suggest you stop signing your posts, that's what a signature is for and you can create one that will automatically attach. Actually posting it at the bottom of each post outside of a signature makes it sound pompus and jackassy rather than classy and polite)
Again, it's significantly underreported. Although men still do a lot of the more damaging violence, women are pretty tough themselves. And as far as instigation is concerned, it is much more closer to a 50-50 ratio than 95-5.
Fewer women go to jail because of sexist people like you who insist that males are more violent and harmful. Therefore, abusive women are often treated like victims and don't get in trouble for it. If people like you would recognize facts rather than sexist stereotypes, maybe the world would have a better time combating domestic abuse against men.
'We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.'
If you had even very basic knowledge of biology, you would know that in many species it's female specimen that are dominating.
'Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species'
Again, ignorance level over 9000. Example of nature? Here you go, lions. Which gender provides hunters there?
'women are the weaker of the sexes'
The stupidity of this statement actually burns. Lack of physical strength is often made up for by agility. Plus advantage in intelligence.
'In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large'
Assumption that units are below families and society. In fact, families and societies are just sums of their members, of units.
For some reason, I do not think humans are extincting. DUDE OUT THERE PEOPLE ARE DYING OF OVERPOPULATION! If we don't get the human birth rate under control, life is going to be hell in a few centuries. You are what I call a CSJ or VIP, Completely Sexist Jerk or Very Ignorant Person (Pig?). Haigt in my opinion is some guy who have decided to base his career upon stuff he made up, gibberish, or that he is really, really bored. PS: Some people arent Christian! Surprise for you there.
Sometimes you have to stay negative and think the worst. The sky is falling. You should also work on getting more info about your topic ( in this case, about global population) before making foolish statements.
Please take your butchered traditional or "moral" gender roles and shove them in a cave so far away that no one will ever, ever find them. Everyone needs and deserves equal rights, and trying to deny them to women is NOT helping anyone, it's sexist bullshit.
emilyericsonFeatured By OwnerDec 3, 2012Hobbyist Writer
I read it carefully the first time, thank you. And it's still sexist bullshit. People should choose how to live their lives and what gender roles to follow or not follow. Men shouldn't be told that they cannot do things that women can do and vise versa. Equal rights, equal chances, equal everything. Women are pushing for what is rightfully ours: equality. Raising one gender up over the other (if that's what you think your ideas would really be doing) is unfair to both genders.
If our species were actually in danger of extinction, conducting society in this matter would be very valid as a matter of practicality, but we are presently overpopulating this planet. The immdiate concern should not still be of who is to be doing what according to their biology, as it is now in our best interests to find other inhabitable planets. We can't survive indefinitely as a species for as long as we remain in a single... galaxy, actually, at least according to current ideas. In any case I do wish people would actually try to understand your post; I don't think it is entirely relevant to present day humanity but we may find circumstances in life where it is best applied.
We have a long wait before space travel becomes real. Einstein and his E=Mc2 has to go first and it looks like it will be here forever.
Unless people want to spend generations on huge arks/ships, we are on earth to stay.
As to extinction of humans is concerned, we are like any other animal. If we do not follow our natures and place women and children above men, whatever chances are for extinction for us will be increased.
Imagine where dogs would be if in the wild, the alpha did not fight for his mate, offspring and group.
It can be real and we can only get there by working toward it, not waiting while a grossly underfunded NASA does what it can with what it has. As I understand at just a tenth of lightpseed, which we can quite reasonably reach in space, we can cover respectable distances (ie. reaching closeby stars) within one human lifetime. If any major organisation can be incentivised into investing heavily into space travel with the goodness of humanity at the heart of its intentions (fat chance I know), the technology could advance a lot more comfortably.
That is neither here nor there at this moment in time however, true. As I thought I made clear before, I am aware of what is necessary for our survival should it come to that, but we face no danger to our survival at the hands of our ecosystem anymore. We are simply beyond that, our next concern is maintaining the Earth. Our concern is no longer how efficiently we can multiply; we've done that, that task is complete; time for the next if we want to survive forever.
"but we face no danger to our survival at the hands of our ecosystem anymore"
One comet or asteroid or pesky germ or virus is all that stands between us and extinction. Sure we are bright but many more species have gone extinct as compared to what we have here and now.
We are here and planet bound not because of any hardware or funding requirements. They are nothing. We are here because we cannot go fast enough anywhere. That is why we must kill E=MC2 or stay right here.
But who can say what we might develop. Like discussions of God's existence, all it can be for the moment is speculation and opinion.
I...approve, except the premise that women are weak. Just try to show me how much stronger you are, and I'll lay your sorry ass on the ground, literally and metaphorically. Weaker sex my ass! And which of us can be made vulnerable at any given time, instantly, by no more than a mediocre groin tap? Women should rule because men are imperfect copies of us.
And as I understand from experience, if a blow to the boobs is even comparable to a testicle hit, it's only because you're going through a major growth and even then, it won't bring you to your knees as it typically does for men.