Is sex inherently misogynistic?

By -

I heard this question being seriously debated by two otherwise sane looking women walking down the street the other day.

Sexual reproduction evolved about a billion or so years ago. For sex to be "inherently misogynistic," these primitive organisms would have had to have been planning the patriarchy from the start, and to have been doing so before males and females actually existed. "Hey, you know, if we evolve male sexual organs, we can oppress those trilobites who evolve female sexual organs! What do you say?"

Furthermore, the system they were plotting would involve the fact that: "Generally in animals mate choice is made by females while males compete to be chosen. This can lead organisms to extreme efforts in order to reproduce, such as combat and display..."

So these proto-patriarchs' plot involved thinking, "Gee, it would be a good idea if we oppressive males try to kill each other in bloody combat, while the females sit back and see which of us comes out alive."

Man, that was one terrible plot!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more