Da Feminism Thread

[Viking]

what? I was just telling you why Animals look for STATUS. Because it is a GOOD INDICATOR that that animal will be able to provide and protect. What are you arguing with? Humans have science and logic and reason that make looking for status less important. But status is still a GOOD INDICATOR that someone will be able to provide and protect.

This debate has never been about animals in general, we are talking about humans here. What does "status" mean in the world of other animals, anyway? That someone won a fight or two, that someone looks "pretty"?

Money is one thing that can give humans status, but other animals have no money. That's one example of a form of status that humans got and other animals don't. Kingship, royalty, government positions, chieftains etc. are other examples (though you might find parallels). Also: slave versus free man.

Humans can fake status - but it's the best we got. Women apply creams to their faces to hide blemishes, and undergo the knife to appear to have higher levels of oestrogen (boob jobs) or appear younger (face lifts). Men are attracted to the younger, more fertile appearance.

Football stars, famous actors and the obscenely rich never have problems getting women, even little Goblins like Ecclestone. I'm sure it is all down to their sense of humour and rapport, not that women want gifts and a good time - if the man can provide that to her, he can provide that to their children. You can't strip out millions of years of evolutionary drives in a couple of thousand.

Football stars are not a result of millions of years of evolution, they are a modern thing. Being good at kicking a ball is not necessarily going to help you surviving a fight (or whatever). Status of today is generally highly different from what it was 400 years ago, 2000 years, 50 000 years ago; et cetera. That is to say, it must be explained why going after status in earlier times was so beneficial that it plays a huge role for selection of mates (yes, I see why going after a football star of today could be a clever move, though going for the best DNA at the same time is even wiser).

Anyway, even if many females go after wealth, that does not imply that it is an inherent trait. The more exposed you are to the masses, the more persons will be aware of you. It is no surprise that young people that are often on TV end up with a lot of offers in the love department.

Another inclination is that they are simply using their brains as much as following their biology.

i dont see what this all has to do with feminism... unless you would argue that society is purely biological and evolutionary and that what we perceive as culture is just a veneer or not even that.

feminism > emancipation > rational process

and at the same time its morals > imperative.

so whatever our biology may tell us to, if we wish this from rational and moralistic perspective we ought to overcome those drives, or atleast try.

so like i said, unless you argue that we cannot overcome those drives and that it is stupid to try so i dont see why we are diving so deep into that issue. (its very interesting but i think deviating from feminism...)

It is sort of deviating from the main topic. At the same time, feminism also seeks to explain the world, and in this light, the biology debate becomes more relevant, even if it might need a connection somewhere to feminist theory or the roles women in society/history to stay true to the topic...